The Project Gutenberg eBook of The King's English
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The King's English
Author: H. W. Fowler
F. G. Fowler
Release date: February 22, 2025 [eBook #75439]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1924
Credits: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KING'S ENGLISH ***
THE
KING’S ENGLISH
BY
H. W. FOWLER & F. G. FOWLER
COMPILERS OF THE
CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH
No levell’d malice
Infects one comma in the course I hold.
_Timon of Athens_, I. i. 48.
SECOND EDITION
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK
TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY
HUMPHREY MILFORD
1924
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
PREFACE
The compilers of this book would be wanting in courtesy if they
did not expressly say what might otherwise be safely left to the
reader’s discernment: the frequent appearance in it of any author’s or
newspaper’s name does not mean that that author or newspaper offends
more often than others against rules of grammar or style; it merely
shows that they have been among the necessarily limited number chosen
to collect instances from.
The plan of the book was dictated by the following considerations.
It is notorious that English writers seldom look into a grammar or
composition book; the reading of grammars is repellent because, being
bound to be exhaustive on a greater or less scale, they must give much
space to the obvious or the unnecessary; and composition books are
often useless because they enforce their warnings only by fabricated
blunders against which every tiro feels himself quite safe. The
principle adopted here has therefore been (1) to pass by all rules,
of whatever absolute importance, that are shown by observation to be
seldom or never broken; and (2) to illustrate by living examples, with
the name of a reputable authority attached to each, all blunders that
observation shows to be common. The reader, however, who is thus led to
suspect that the only method followed has been the rejection of method
will find, it is hoped, a practical security against inconvenience in
the very full Index.
Further, since the positive literary virtues are not to be taught by
brief quotation, nor otherwise attained than by improving the gifts
of nature with wide or careful reading, whereas something may really
be done for the negative virtues by mere exhibition of what should be
avoided, the examples collected have had to be examples of the bad
and not of the good. To this it must be added that a considerable
proportion of the newspaper extracts are, as is sometimes apparent,
not from the editorial, but from the correspondence columns; the names
attached are merely an assurance that the passages have actually
appeared in print, and not been now invented to point a moral.
The especial thanks of the compilers are offered to Dr. Bradley, joint
editor of the _Oxford English Dictionary_, who has been good enough
to inspect the proof sheets, and whose many valuable suggestions have
led to the removal of some too unqualified statements, some confused
exposition, and some positive mistakes. It is due to him, however,
to say that his warnings have now and then been disregarded, when it
seemed that brevity or some other advantage could be secured without
great risk of misunderstanding.
The _Oxford English Dictionary_ itself has been of much service. On all
questions of vocabulary, even if so slightly handled as in the first
chapter of this book, that great work is now indispensable.
H. W. F.
F. G. F.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
In this edition new examples have been added or substituted here and
there.
CONTENTS
PART I
PAGE
CHAPTER I. VOCABULARY, pp. 1-59
General Principles 1-8
Familiar and far-fetched words 4
Concrete and abstract expression 5
Circumlocution 6
Short and long words 6
Saxon and Romance words 7
Requirements of different styles 7
Malaprops 8
Neologisms 18
Americanisms 23
Foreign words 26
Formation 37
Slang 47
_Individual_ 53
_Mutual_ 56
_Unique_ 58
_Aggravate_ 59
CHAPTER II. SYNTAX, pp. 60-170
Case 60
Number 65
Comparatives and superlatives 70
Relatives 75-107
Defining and non-defining relative clauses 75
_That_ and _who_ or _which_ 80
_And who_, _and which_ 85
Case of the relative 93
Miscellaneous uses of the relative 96
_It ... that_ 104
Participle and gerund 107
Participles 110
The gerund 116-133
Distinguishing the gerund 116
Omission of the gerund subject 125
Choice between gerund and infinitive 129
Shall and will 133-154
The pure system 134
The coloured-future system 136
The plain-future system 138
Second-person questions 139
Examples of principal sentences 141
Substantival clauses 143
Conditional clauses 149
Indefinite clauses 151
Examples of subordinate clauses 152
Perfect infinitive 154
Conditionals 156
_Doubt that_ 158
Prepositions 161
CHAPTER III. AIRS AND GRACES, pp. 171-218
Certain types of humor 171
Elegant variation 175
Inversion 180-193
Exclamatory 181
Balance 182
In syntactic clauses 187
Negative, and false-emphasis 190
Miscellaneous 191
Archaism 193-200
Occasional 193
Sustained 198
Metaphor 200
Repetition 209
Miscellaneous 213-218
Trite phrases 213
Irony 215
Superlatives without _the_ 216
Cheap originality 217
CHAPTER IV. PUNCTUATION, pp. 219-290
General difficulties 219
General principles 224
The spot plague 226
Over-stopping 231
Under-stopping 234
Grammar and punctuation 235-263
Substantival clauses 235
Subject, &c., and verb 239
Adjectival clauses 242
Adverbial clauses 244
Parenthesis 247
Misplaced commas 248
Enumeration 250
Comma between independent sentences 254
Semicolon with subordinate members 257
Exclamations and statements 258
Exclamations and questions 259
Internal question and exclamation marks 261
Unaccountable commas 262
The colon 263
Miscellaneous 264
Dashes 266-275
General abuse 266
Legitimate uses 267
Debatable questions 269
Common misuses 274
Hyphens 275
Quotation marks 280-290
Excessive use 280
Order with stops 282
Single and double 287
Misplaced 288
Half quotation 289
PART II. p. 291 to the end
EUPHONY, §§ 1-10
1. Jingles 291
2. Alliteration 292
3. Repeated prepositions 293
4. Sequence of relatives 293
5. Sequence of _that_, &c. 294
6. Metrical prose 295
7. Sentence accent 295
8. Causal _as_ clauses 298
9. Wens and hypertrophied members 300
10. Careless repetition 303
QUOTATION, &c., §§ 11-19
11. Common misquotations 305
12. Uncommon misquotations of well-known passages 305
13. Misquotation of less familiar passages 306
14. Misapplied and misunderstood quotations and phrases 306
15. Allusion 307
16. Incorrect allusion 308
17. Dovetailed and adapted quotations and phrases 308
18. Trite quotation 310
19. Latin abbreviations, &c. 311
GRAMMAR, §§ 20-37
20. Unequal yokefellows and defective double harness 311
21. Common parts 314
22. The wrong turning 316
23. Ellipse in subordinate clauses 317
24. Some illegitimate infinitives 317
25. Split infinitives 319
26. Compound passives 319
27. Confusion with negatives 321
28. Omission of _as_ 324
29. Other liberties taken with _as_ 324
30. Brachylogy 326
31. Between two stools 327
32. The impersonal _one_ 328
33. _Between ... or_ 328
34. _A_ placed between the adjective and its noun 329
35. _Do_ as substitute verb 330
36. Fresh starts 330
37. Vulgarisms and colloquialisms 331
MEANING, §§ 38-48
38. Tautology 331
39. Redundancies 332
40. _As to whether_ 333
41. Superfluous _but_ and _though_ 334
42. _If and when_ 334
43. Maltreated idioms 336
44. Truisms and contradictions in terms 339
45. Double emphasis 341
46. Split auxiliaries 342
47. Overloading 343
48. Demonstrative, noun, and participle or adjective 344
AMBIGUITY, §§ 49-52
49. False scent 345
50. Misplacement of words 346
51. Ambiguous position 347
52. Ambiguous enumeration 348
STYLE, § 53 to the end
53. Antics 348
54. Journalese 351
55. _Somewhat_, &c. 352
56. Clumsy patching 355
57. Omission of the conjunction _that_ 356
58. Meaningless _while_ 357
59. Commercialisms 358
60. Pet Phrases 359
61. _Also_ as conjunction; and _&c._ 359
CHAPTER I
VOCABULARY
GENERAL
Any one who wishes to become a good writer should endeavour, before he
allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be direct,
simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid.
This general principle may be translated into practical rules in the
domain of vocabulary as follows:--
Prefer the familiar word to the far-fetched.
Prefer the concrete word to the abstract.
Prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
Prefer the short word to the long.
Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance.[1]
These rules are given roughly in order of merit; the last is also
the least. It is true that it is often given alone, as a sort of
compendium of all the others. In some sense it is that: the writer
whose percentage of Saxon words is high will generally be found to
have fewer words that are out of the way, long, or abstract, and fewer
periphrases, than another; and conversely. But if, instead of his
Saxon percentage’s being the natural and undesigned consequence of
his brevity (and the rest), those other qualities have been attained
by his consciously restricting himself to Saxon, his pains will have
been worse than wasted; the taint of preciosity will be over all he
has written. Observing that _translate_ is derived from Latin, and
learning that the Elizabethans had another word for it, he will pull us
up by _englishing_ his quotations; he will puzzle the general reader
by introducing his book with a _foreword_. Such freaks should be left
to the Germans, who have by this time succeeded in expelling as aliens
a great many words that were good enough for Goethe. And they, indeed,
are very likely right, because their language is a thoroughbred one;
ours is not, and can now never be, anything but a hybrid; _foreword_
is (or may be) Saxon; we can find out in the dictionary whether it is
or not; but _preface_ is English, dictionary or no dictionary; and
we want to write English, not Saxon. Add to this that, even if the
Saxon criterion were a safe one, more knowledge than most of us have
is needed to apply it. Few who were not deep in philology would be
prepared to state that no word in the following list (extracted from
the preface to the _Oxford Dictionary_) is English:--_battle_, _beast_,
_beauty_, _beef_, _bill_, _blue_, _bonnet_, _border_, _boss_, _bound_,
_bowl_, _brace_, _brave_, _bribe_, _bruise_, _brush_, _butt_, _button_.
Dr. Murray observes that these ‘are now no less “native”, and no less
important constituents of our vocabulary, than the Teutonic words’.
There are, moreover, innumerable pairs of synonyms about which the
Saxon principle gives us no help. The first to hand are _ere_ and
_before_ (both Saxon), _save_ and _except_ (both Romance), _anent_ and
_about_ (both Saxon again). Here, if the ‘Saxon’ rule has nothing to
say, the ‘familiar’ rule leaves no doubt. The intelligent reader whom
our writer has to consider will possibly not know the linguistic facts;
indeed he more likely than not takes _save_ for a Saxon word. But he
does know the reflections that the words, if he happens to be reading
leisurely enough for reflection, excite in him. As he comes to _save_,
he wonders, Why not _except_? At sight of _ere_ he is irresistibly
reminded of that sad spectacle, a mechanic wearing his Sunday clothes
on a weekday. And _anent_, to continue the simile, is nothing less than
a masquerade costume. The _Oxford Dictionary_ says drily of the last
word: ‘Common in Scotch law phraseology, and affected by many English
writers’; it might have gone further, and said ‘“affected” in any
English writer’; such things are antiquarian rubbish, Wardour-Street
English. Why not (as our imagined intelligent reader asked)--why not
_before_, _except_, and _about_? Bread is the staff of life, and words
like these, which are common and are not vulgar, which are good enough
for the highest and not too good for the lowest, are the staple of
literature. The first thing a writer must learn is, that he is not to
reject them unless he can show good cause. _Before_ and _except_, it
must be clearly understood, have such a prescriptive right that to
use other words instead is not merely not to choose these, it is to
reject them. It may be done in poetry, and in the sort of prose that
is half poetry: to do it elsewhere is to insult _before_, to injure
_ere_ (which is a delicate flower that will lose its quality if much
handled), and to make one’s sentence both pretentious and frigid.
It is now perhaps clear that the Saxon oracle is not infallible; it
will sometimes be dumb, and sometimes lie. Nevertheless, it is not
without its uses as a test. The words to be chosen are those that
the probable reader is sure to understand without waste of time and
thought; a good proportion of them will in fact be Saxon, but mainly
because it happens that most abstract words--which are by our second
rule to be avoided--are Romance. The truth is that all five rules would
be often found to give the same answer about the same word or set of
words. Scores of illustrations might be produced; let one suffice: _In
the contemplated eventuality_ (a phrase no worse than what any one can
pick for himself out of his paper’s leading article for the day) is at
once the far-fetched, the abstract, the periphrastic, the long, and the
Romance, for _if so_. It does not very greatly matter by which of the
five roads the natural is reached instead of the monstrosity, so long
as it _is_ reached. The five are indicated because (1) they differ in
directness, and (2) in any given case only one of them may be possible.
We will now proceed to a few examples of how not to write, roughly
classified under the five headings, though, after what has been
said, it will cause no surprise that most of them might be placed
differently. Some sort of correction is suggested for each, but the
reader will indulgently remember that to correct a bad sentence
satisfactorily is not always possible; it should never have existed,
that is all that can be said. In particular, sentences overloaded
with abstract words are, in the nature of things, not curable simply
by substituting equivalent concrete words; there can be no such
equivalents; the structure has to be more or less changed.
1. =Prefer the familiar word= to the far-fetched.
The old Imperial naval policy, which has failed conspicuously
because it _antagonized the unalterable supremacy of Colonial
nationalism_.--_Times._ (stood in the way of that national ambition
which must always be uppermost in the Colonial mind)
Buttercups made a sunlight of their own, and in the shelter of
scattered coppices the pale _wind-flowers_ still dreamed in
whiteness.--E. F. BENSON.
We all know what an _anemone_ is: whether we know what a _wind-flower_
is, unless we happen to be Greek scholars, is quite doubtful.
The state of Poland, and the excesses committed by mobilized troops,
have been of a far more serious nature than has been allowed to
_transpire_.--_Times._ (come out)
Reform converses with possibilities, _perchance_ with impossibilities;
but here is sacred fact.--EMERSON. (perhaps)
Tanners and users are strongly of opinion that there is no room
for further enhancement, but on that point there is always
room for doubt especially when the _export phase_ is taken into
consideration.--_Times._ (state of the export trade)
Witchcraft has been put a stop to by Act of Parliament; but the
mysterious relations which it _emblemed_ still continue.--CARLYLE.
(symbolized)
It will only have itself to thank if future disaster rewards its
_nescience_ of the conditions of successful warfare.--_Outlook._
(ignorance)
_Continual vigilance is imperative on the public_ to
ensure....--_Times._ (We must be ever on the watch)
These manoeuvres are by no means new, and _their recrudescence is
hardly calculated to influence the development of events_.--_Times._
(the present use of them is not likely to be effective)
‘I have no particular business at L----’, said he; ‘I was merely going
_thither_ to pass a day or two.’--BORROW. (there)
2. =Prefer the concrete word= (or rather expression) to the abstract.
It may be here remarked that abstract expression and the excessive
use of nouns are almost the same thing. The cure consists very much,
therefore, in the clearing away of noun rubbish.
_The general poverty of explanation as to the diction of particular
phrases seemed to point in the same direction._--_Cambridge University
Reporter._ (It was perhaps owing to this also that the diction of
particular phrases was often so badly explained)
_An elementary condition of a sound discussion is a frank recognition
of the gulf severing two sets of facts._--_Times._ (There can be no
sound discussion where the gulf severing two sets of facts is not
frankly recognized)
_The signs of the times point to the necessity of the modification of
the system of administration._--_Times._ (It is becoming clear that
the administrative system must be modified)
_No year passes now without evidence of the truth of the
statement that_ the work of government is becoming increasingly
difficult.--_Spectator._ (Every year shows again how true it is
that....)
The first private conference _relating to the question of
the convocation of representatives of the nation_ took place
yesterday.--_Times._ (on national representation)
_There seems to have been an absence of attempt at conciliation
between rival sects._--_Daily Telegraph._ (The sects seem never even
to have tried mutual conciliation)
Zeal, however, must not outrun discretion in changing abstract to
concrete. _Officer_ is concrete, and _office_ abstract; but we do
not _promote to officers_, as in the following quotation, but to
_offices_--or, with more exactness in this context, to _commissions_.
Over 1,150 cadets of the Military Colleges were _promoted to officers_
at the Palace of Tsarskoe Selo yesterday.--_Times._
3. =Prefer the single word= to the circumlocution. As the word _case_
seems to lend itself particularly to abuse, we start with more than one
specimen of it.
Inaccuracies were _in many cases_ due to cramped methods of
writing.--_Cambridge University Reporter._ (often)
The handwriting was on the whole good, with a few examples
of remarkably fine penmanship _in the case both of_ boys and
girls.--_Ibid._ (by both boys....)
Few candidates showed a thorough knowledge of the text of 1 Kings, and
_in many cases the answers_ lacked care.--_Ibid._ (many answers)
The matter will remain in abeyance until the Bishop has had time
to become more fully acquainted with the diocese, and to ascertain
which part of the city will be most desirable for _residential
purposes_.--_Times._ (his residence)
M. Witte is _taking active measures for the prompt preparation of
material for the study of the question of the execution of the
Imperial Ukase dealing with reforms_.--_Times._ (actively collecting
all information that may be needed before the Tsar’s reform Ukase can
be executed)
The Russian Government is at last face to face with the greatest
crisis of the war, _in the shape of the fact that_ the Siberian
railway is no longer capable....--_Spectator._ (for) or (:)
Mr. J---- O---- has _been made the recipient of_ a silver
medal.--_Guernsey Advertiser._ (received)
4. =Prefer the short word= to the long.
One of the most important reforms mentioned in the rescript _is the
unification of the organization of the judicial institutions and
the guarantee for all the tribunals of the independence necessary
for securing to all classes of the community equality before the
law_.--_Times._ (is that of the Courts, which need a uniform system,
and the independence without which it is impossible for all men to be
equal before the law)
I merely desired to point out _the principal reason which I believe
exists for the great exaggeration which is occasionally to be
observed in the estimate of the importance of the contradiction
between current Religion and current Science put forward by thinkers
of reputation_.--BALFOUR. (why, in my opinion, some well-known
thinkers make out the contradiction between current Religion and
current Science to be so much more important than it is)
Sir,--Will you permit me to _homologate_ all you say to-day regarding
that selfish minority of motorists who....--_Times._ (agree with)
On the Berlin Bourse to-day the prospect of a general strike was
cheerfully _envisaged_.--_Times._ (faced)
5. =Prefer the Saxon word= to the Romance.
_Despite the unfavourable climatic conditions._--_Guernsey
Advertiser._ (Bad as the weather has been)
* * * * *
By way of general rules for the choice of words, so much must suffice.
And these must be qualified by the remark that what is suitable for
one sort of composition may be unsuitable for another. The broadest
line of this kind is that between poetry and prose; but with that we
are not concerned, poetry being quite out of our subject. There are
other lines, however, between the scientific and the literary styles,
the dignified and the familiar. Our rendering of the passage quoted
from Mr. Balfour, for instance, may be considered to fall below the
dignity required of a philosophic essay. The same might, with less
reason, be said of our simplified newspaper extracts; a great journal
has a tone that must be kept up; if it had not been for that, we should
have dealt with them yet more drastically. But a more candid plea for
the journalist, and one not without weight, would be that he has not
time to reduce what he wishes to say into a simple and concrete form.
It is in fact as much easier for him to produce, as it is harder for
his reader to understand, the slipshod abstract stuff that he does
rest content with. But it may be suspected that he often thinks the
length of his words and his capacity for dealing in the abstract
to be signs of a superior mind. As long as that opinion prevails,
improvement is out of the question. But if it could once be established
that simplicity was the true ideal, many more writers would be found
capable of coming near it than ever make any effort that way now. The
fact remains, at any rate, that different kinds of composition require
different treatment; but any attempt to go into details on the question
would be too ambitious; the reader can only be warned that in this
fact may be found good reasons for sometimes disregarding any or all
of the preceding rules. Moreover, they must not be applied either so
unintelligently as to sacrifice any really important shade of meaning,
or so invariably as to leave an impression of monotonous and unrelieved
emphasis.
The rest of this chapter will be devoted to more special and definite
points--malaprops, neologisms, Americanisms, foreign words, bad
formations, slang, and some particular words.
MALAPROPS
Before classifying, we define a malaprop as a word used in the belief
that it has the meaning really belonging to another word that resembles
it in some particular.
1. =Words containing the same stem, but necessarily, or at least
indisputably, distinguished by termination or prefix.=
‘She writes _comprehensively_ enough when she writes to M. de
Bassompierre: he who runs may read.’ In fact, Ginevra’s epistles to
her wealthy kinsman were commonly business documents, unequivocal
applications for cash.--C. BRONTË.
The context proves that _comprehensibly_ is meant.
The working of the staff at the agent’s disposal was to a great extent
voluntary, and, therefore, required all the influence of _judicial_
management in order to avoid inevitable difficulties.--_Times._
(judicious)
A not uncommon blunder.
By all means let us have bright, hearty, and very _reverend_
services.--_Daily Telegraph._ (reverent)
Not uncommon.
He chuckled at his own _perspicuity_.--CORELLI.
If the writer had a little more _perspicuity_ he would have known that
the Church Congress would do nothing of the kind.--_Daily Telegraph._
_Perspicuity_ is clearness or transparency: insight is _perspicacity_.
_-uity_ of style, _-acity_ of mind. Very common.
Selected in the beginning, I know, for your great ability and
_trustfulness_.--DICKENS. (trustworthiness)
Wise, firm, faithless; secret, crafty, passionless; watchful and
inscrutable; acute and _insensate_--withal perfectly decorous--what
more could be desired?--C. BRONTË.
Apparently for _insensible_ in the meaning _hardhearted_. Though modern
usage fluctuates, it seems to tend towards the meaning, _stupidly
unmoved by prudence or by facts_; at any rate _acute_ and _insensate_
are incompatible.
In the meantime the colossal advertisement in the German Press of
German aims, of German interests, and of German policy _incontinently_
proceeds.--_Times._
The idiomatic sense of _incontinently_ is _immediately_; it seems here
to be used for _continually_.
I was _awaiting_ with real curiosity to hear the way in which M.
Loubet would to-day acquit himself.--_Times._ (waiting)
_Awaiting_ is always transitive.
But they too will feel the pain just where you feel it now, and they
will _bethink_ themselves the only unhappy on the earth.--CROCKETT.
There is no sort of authority for _bethink_--like _think_--with object
and complement. _To bethink oneself_ is to remember, or to hit upon an
idea.
And Pizarro ... established the city of Arequipa, since _arisen_ to
such commercial celebrity.--PRESCOTT.
Arethusa arose; a difficulty arises; but to greatness we can only
rise--unless, indeed, we wake to find ourselves famous; then we do
arise to greatness.
2. =Words like the previous set, except that the differentiation may
possibly be disputed.=
The long drought left the torrent of which I am speaking, and such
others, in a state peculiarly favourable to _observance_ of their
least action on the mountains from which they descend.--RUSKIN.
(observation)
_Observance_ is obedience, compliance, &c. The _Oxford Dictionary_
recognizes _observance_ in the sense of watching, but gives no
authority for it later than 1732 except another passage from Ruskin;
the natural conclusion is that he accidentally failed to recognize a
valuable differentiation long arrived at.
It is physical science, and experience, that man ought to consult
in religion, morals, _legislature_, as well as in knowledge and the
arts.--MORLEY. (legislation)
_Legislature_ is the legislative body--in England, King, Lords, and
Commons. To call back the old confusion is an offence.
The apposite display of the diamonds usually stopped the tears that
began to flow hereabouts; and she would remain in a _complaisant_
state until....--DICKENS. (complacent)
Our Correspondent adds that he is fully persuaded that Rozhdestvensky
has nothing more to expect from the _complacency_ of the French
authorities.--_Times._ (complaisance)
_Complaisant_ is over polite, flattering, subservient, &c. _Complacent_
means contented, satisfied.
In the spring of that year the privilege was withdrawn from the four
associated booksellers, and the _continuance_ of the work strictly
prohibited.--MORLEY.
_Continuation_ is the noun of continue, go on with: _continuance_ of
continue, remain. With _continuance_ the meaning would be that the
already published volumes (of Diderot’s _Encyclopaedia_) were to be
destroyed; but the meaning intended is that the promised volumes were
not to be gone on with--which requires _continuation_. Again, the next
two extracts, from one page, show Mr. Morley wrongly substituting
_continuity_, which only means continuousness, for _continuance_.
Having arrived at a certain conclusion with regard to the
_continuance_ ... of Mr. Parnell’s leadership....--GLADSTONE.
The most cynical ... could not fall a prey to such a hallucination as
to suppose ... that either of these communities could tolerate ... so
impenitent an affront as the unruffled _continuity_ of the stained
leadership.--MORLEY.
The Rev. Dr. Usher said he believed the writer of the first letter to
be earnest in his inquiry, and agreed with him that the topic of it
was _transcendentally_ important.--_Daily Telegraph._
_Transcendently_ means in a superlative degree: _transcendentally_ is a
philosophic term for independently of experience, &c.
Until at last, gathered _altogether_ again, they find their way down
to the turf.--RUSKIN. (all together)
At such times ... Jimmie’s better angel was always in the
ascendency.--_Windsor Magazine._
Was in the _ascendant_: had an _ascendency_ over.
The inconsistency and _evasion_ of the attitude of the
Government.--_Spectator._
_Evasiveness_ the quality: _evasion_ a particular act.
The _requisition_ for a life of Christianity is ‘walk in
love’.--_Daily Telegraph._
_Requisite_ or _requirement_, the thing required: _requisition_, the
act of requiring it.
We will here merely chronicle the _procession_ of
events.--_Spectator._ (progress or succession)
I was able to watch the Emperor during all these interviews, and
noticed the forcible manner in which he spoke, especially to the
Sultan’s uncle, who came from Fez _especially_.--_Times._ (specially)
As it stands, it implies that he came chiefly from Fez, but from other
places in a minor degree; it is meant to imply that he came for this
particular interview, and had no other motive. The differentiation of
_spec-_ and _espec-_ is by no means complete yet, but some uses of each
are already ludicrous. Roughly, _spec-_ means particular as opposed to
general, _espec-_ particular as opposed to ordinary; but usage must be
closely watched.
That it occurs in _violence to_ police regulations is daily
apparent.--_Guernsey Advertiser._ (violation of)
In the field it aims at efforts of unexpected and extreme violence;
the _research_ of hostile masses, their defeat by overwhelming and
relentless assault, and their wholesale destruction by rigorous
pursuit.--_Times._ (discovery)
The object of research is laws, principles, facts, &c., not concrete
things or persons. Entomological research, for instance, does not look
for insects, but for facts about insects.
3. =Give-and-take forms=, in which there are two words, with different
constructions, that might properly be used, and one is given the
construction of the other.
A few companies, _comprised_ mainly _of_ militiamen.--_Times._
(composed of? comprising?)
The _Novoe Vremya_ thinks the Tsar’s words will undoubtedly _instil_
the Christians of Macedonia _with_ hope.--_Times._ (inspire them with
hope? instil hope into them?)
He appreciated the leisurely solidity, the leisurely beauty of the
place, so _innate with_ the genius of the Anglo-Saxon.--E. F. BENSON.
(genius innate in the place? the place instinct with genius?)
4. =Words having properly no connexion= with each other at all, but
confused owing to superficial resemblance.
Mr. Barton walked forth in cape and boa, to read prayers at
the work-house, _euphuistically_ called the ‘College’.--ELIOT.
(euphemistically)
_Euphemism_ is slurring over badness by giving it a good name:
_euphuism_ is a literary style full of antithesis and simile. A pair
of extracts (_Friedrich_, vol. iv, pp. 5 and 36) will convince readers
that these words are dangerous:
Hence Bielfeld goes to Hanover, to grin-out _euphuisms_, and make
graceful court-bows to our sublime little Uncle there.--CARLYLE.
Readers may remember, George II has been at Hanover for some
weeks past; Bielfeld diligently grinning _euphemisms_ and courtly
graciosities to him.--CARLYLE.
Troops capable of _contesting_ successfully against the forces of
other nations.--_Times._
Though there is authority, chiefly old, for it, good general usage is
against _contest_ without an object--contest the victory, &c. And as
there is no possible advantage in writing it, with _contend_ ready to
hand, it is better avoided in the intransitive sense.
In the present _self-deprecatory_ mood in which the English people
find themselves.--_Spectator._ (self-depreciatory)
_Depreciate_, undervalue: _deprecate_, pray against. A bad but very
common blunder.
‘An irreparable colleague,’ Mr. Gladstone notes in his diary.--MORLEY.
(irreplaceable)
No dead colleague is reparable--though his loss may or may not be
so--this side the Day of Judgement.
Surely he was better employed in plying the trades of tinker and smith
than in having _resource_ to vice, in running after milkmaids, for
example.--BORROW. (recourse)
You may indeed have recourse to a resource, but not vice versa. You may
also resort to, which makes the confusion easier.
What she would say to him, how he would take it, even the vaguest
_predication_ of their discourse, was beyond him to guess.--E. F.
BENSON. (prediction)
_Predication_ has nothing to do with the future; it is a synonym, used
especially in logic, for _statement_. The mistake is generally whipped
out of schoolboys in connexion with _praedĩcere_ and _praedĭcare_.
5. =Words whose meaning is misapprehended without apparent cause.= The
hankering of ignorant writers after the unfamiliar or imposing leads
to much of this. We start with two uses of which correct and incorrect
examples are desirable: _provided_, where _if_ is required; and _to
eke out_ in wrong senses. _Provided_ adorns every other page of George
Borrow; we should have left it alone as an eccentricity of his, if we
had not lately found the wrong use more than once in _The Times_.
_Provided_ is a small district in the kingdom of _if_; it can never be
wrong to write _if_ instead of _provided_: to write _provided_ instead
of _if_ will generally be wrong, but now and then an improvement in
precision. So much is clear; to define the boundaries of the district
is another matter; we might be wiser merely to appeal to our readers
whether all the examples to be quoted, except one, are not wrong. But
that would be cowardly; we lay down, then, that (_a_) the clause must
be a stipulation, i. e., a demand yet to be fulfilled, (_b_) there must
be a stipulator, who (_c_) must desire, or at least insist upon, the
fulfilment of it.
Ganganelli would never have been poisoned _provided_ he had had
nephews about to take care of his life.--BORROW.
There is no stipulator or stipulation. Grammar would have allowed
Providence to say to him ‘You shall not be poisoned, provided you
surround yourself with nephews’.
The kicks and blows which my husband Launcelot was in the habit of
giving me every night, _provided_ I came home with less than five
shillings.--BORROW.
Launcelot, the stipulator, does not desire the fulfilment. If _kisses_
are substituted for _kicks and blows_, and _more_ for _less_, the
sentence will stand.
She and I agreed to stand by each other, and be true to old Church of
England, and to give our governors warning, _provided_ they tried to
make us renegades.--BORROW.
The stipulators, she and I, do not desire the fulfilment. _Not_ to
give warning, provided they did _not_ try, would be English. There is
similar confusion between the requirements of negative and positive in
the next:
A society has just been founded at Saratoff, the object being, as the
members declare in a manifesto to the Liberals, to use violent methods
and even bombs _provided_ the latter do so themselves.--_Times._
In these circumstances the chances are that the direction to proceed
to Vladivostok at all costs, _provided_ such instruction _were_ ever
given, may have been reconsidered.--_Times._ (if indeed ... was)
There is no stipulation; it is only a question of past fact.
What will the War Council at the capital decide _provided_ the war is
to continue?... The longer Linevitch can hold his position the better,
provided he does not risk a serious action.--_Times._ (if, or assuming
that)
There is no stipulation, stipulator, or desire--only a question of
future fact. The second _provided_ in this passage is quite correct.
The _Times_ writer--or the Russian War Council, his momentary
client--insists that Linevitch shall not run risks, and encourages him,
if that stipulation is fulfilled, to hold on.
To _eke out_ means to increase, supplement, or add to. It may be called
a synonym for any of these verbs; but it must be remembered that
no synonyms are ever precise equivalents. The peculiarity of _eke
out_ is that it implies difficulty; in technical language, agreeing
with _supplement_ in its denotation, it has the extra connotation of
difficulty. But it does not mean to make, nor to endure. From its
nature, it will very seldom be used (correctly), though it conceivably
might, without the source of the addition’s being specified. In the
first of the quotations, it is rightly used; in the second it is given
the wrong meaning of _make_, and in the last the equally wrong one of
_endure_.
A writer with a story to tell that is not very fresh usually _ekes_
it _out_ by referring as much as possible to surrounding objects.--H.
JAMES.
She had contrived, taking one year with another, to _eke out_ a
tolerably sufficient living since her husband’s demise.--DICKENS.
Yes, we do believe, or would the clergy _eke out_ an existence which
is not far removed from poverty?--_Daily Telegraph._
Next, some isolated illustrations of our present heading:
‘There are many things in the commonwealth of Nowhere, which I rather
wish than hope to see adopted in our own.’ It was with these words of
characteristic _irony_ that More closed the great work.--J. R. GREEN.
The word _irony_ is one of the worst abused in the language; but it was
surely never more gratuitously imported than in this passage. There
could be no more simple, direct, and literal expression of More’s
actual feeling than his words. Now any definition of irony--though
hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted--must
include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of
what is said are not the same. The only way to make out that we have
irony here is to suppose that More assumed that the vulgar would think
that he was speaking ironically, whereas he was really serious--a very
topsy-turvy explanation. _Satire_, however, with which _irony_ is often
confused, would have passed.
A literary tour de force, a _recrudescence_, two or three
generations later, of the very respectable William Lamb (afterwards
Lord Melbourne), his unhappy wife, Lady Caroline Lamb, and Lord
Byron.--_Times._ (reincarnation, avatar, resurrection?)
_Recrudescence_ is becoming quite a fashionable journalistic word.
It properly means the renewed inflammation of a wound, and so the
breaking out again of an epidemic, &c. It may reasonably be used
of revolutionary or silly opinions: to use it of persons or their
histories is absurd.
A colonel on the General Staff, while arguing for a continuation of
the struggle on _metaphysical_ grounds, admitted to me that even if
the Russians regained Manchuria they would never succeed in colonizing
it.... The _Bourse Gazette_ goes still further. It says that war for
any definite purpose ceased with the fall of Mukden, and that its
_continuation is apparent_ not from any military or naval actions, but
from the feeling of depression which is weighing upon all Russians and
the reports of the peace overtures.--_Times._
We can suggest no substitute for _metaphysical_. Though we have long
known _metaphysics_ for a blessed and mysterious word, this is our
first meeting with it in war or politics. The ‘apparent continuation’,
however, seems darkly to hint at the old question between phenomena and
real existence, so that perhaps we actually are in metaphysics all the
time.
In a word, M. Witte was always against all our aggressive measures
in the Far East.... M. Witte, who was always supported by Count
Lamsdorff, has no share in the responsibility of all that has
_transpired_.--_Times._ (happened)
As a synonym for _become known_,[2] _transpire_ is journalistic and
ugly, but may pass: as a synonym for _happen_, it is a bad blunder, but
not uncommon.
It was, of course, Mrs. Sedley’s opinion that her son would _demean_
himself by a marriage with an artist’s daughter.--THACKERAY.
The actors who raddle their faces and _demean_ themselves on the
stage.--STEVENSON. (lower, degrade)
To _demean_ oneself, with adverb of manner attached, is to behave in
that manner. The other use has probably arisen by a natural confusion
with the adjective _mean_; one suspects that it has crept into
literature by being used in intentional parody of vulgar speech, till
it was forgotten that it was parody. But perhaps when a word has been
given full citizen rights by Thackeray and Stevenson, it is too late to
expel it.
‘Oxoniensis’ approaches them with courage, his thoughts are expressed
in plain, unmistakable language, _howbeit_ with the touch of a master
hand.--_Daily Telegraph._
_Albeit_ means _though_: _howbeit_ always _nevertheless_, beginning not
a subordinate clause, but a principal sentence. A good example of the
danger attending ignorant archaism.
In a word, Count von Bülow, who took a very rosy view of the agreement
last year, now suddenly discovers that he was slighted, and is
indignant _in the paulo-post future tense_.--_Times._
This jest would be pedantic in any case, since no one but schoolmasters
and schoolboys knows what the paulo-post-future tense is. Being the one
represented in English by _I shall have been killed_, it has, further,
no application here; _paulo-ante-past tense_, if there were such a
thing, might have meant something. As it is, pedantry is combined with
inaccuracy.
6. =Words used in unaccustomed, though not impossible, senses or
applications.= This is due sometimes to that avoidance of the obvious
which spoils much modern writing, and sometimes to an ignorance of
English idiom excusable in a foreigner, but not in a native.
No one can imagine non-intervention carried through so desperate and
so _consequential_ a war as this.--GREENWOOD.
If _important_ or _fateful_ will not do, it is better to write _a war
so desperate and so pregnant with consequences_ than to abuse a word
whose idiomatic uses are particularly well marked. A consequential
person is one who likes to exhibit his consequence; a consequential
amendment is one that is a natural consequence or corollary of another.
Half of Mr. Roosevelt’s speech deals with this double need of justice
and strength, the other half being a _skilled_ application of
Washington’s maxims to present circumstances.--_Times._ (skilful)
Idiom confines _skilled_, except in poetry, almost entirely to the word
_labour_, and to craftsmen--a skilled mason, for instance.
It is to the Convention, therefore, that reference must be made for an
_intelligence_ of the principles on which the Egyptian Government has
acted during the present war.--_Times._ (understanding)
No one can say why _intelligence_ should never be followed by an
objective genitive, as grammarians call this; but nearly every one
knows, apart from the technical term, that it never is. Idiom is an
autocrat, with whom it is always well to keep on good terms.
Easier to reproduce, in its _concision_, is the description of the
day.--H. JAMES. (conciseness)
_Concision_ is a term in theology, to which it may well be left. In
criticism, though its use is increasing, it has still an exotic air.
7. =Simple love of the long word.=
The wide public importance of these proposals (customs regulations)
has now been conceived in no _desultory_ manner.--_Guernsey
Advertiser._
We have touched shortly upon some four dozen of what we call malaprops.
Now possible malaprops, in our extended sense, are to be reckoned not
by the dozen, but by the million. Moreover, out of our four dozen, not
more than some half a dozen are uses that it is worth any one’s while
to register individually in his mind for avoidance. The conclusion of
which is this: we have made no attempt at cataloguing the mistakes of
this sort that must not be committed; every one must construct his own
catalogue by care, observation, and the resolve to use no word whose
meaning he is not sure of--even though that resolve bring on him the
extreme humiliation of now and then opening the dictionary. Our aim has
been, not to make a list, but to inculcate a frame of mind.
NEOLOGISMS
Most people of literary taste will say on this point ‘It must needs be
that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh’.
They are Liberal-Conservatives, their liberalism being general and
theoretic, their conservatism particular and practical. And indeed, if
no new words were to appear, it would be a sign that the language was
moribund; but it is well that each new word that does appear should be
severely scrutinized.
The progress of arts and sciences gives occasion for the large majority
of new words; for a new thing we must have a new name; hence, for
instance, _motor_, _argon_, _appendicitis_. It is interesting to see
that the last word did not exist, or was at least too obscure to be
recorded, when the _Oxford Dictionary_ began to come out in 1888; we
cannot do without it now. Nor is there in the same volume any sign of
_argon_, which now has three pages of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_
to itself. The discoverers of it are to be thanked for having also
invented for it a name that is short, intelligible to those at least
who know Greek, free of barbarism, and above all pronounceable. As to
barbarism, it might indeed be desired that the man of science should
always call in the man of Greek composition as godfather to his gas or
his process; but it is a point of less importance. Every one has been
told at school how _telegram_ ought to be _telegrapheme_; but by this
time we have long ceased to mourn for the extra syllable, and begun
seriously to consider whether the further shortening into _wire_ has
not been resisted as long as honour demands.
Among other arts and sciences, that of lexicography happens to have
found convenient a neologism that may here be used to help in the
very slight classification required for the new words we are more
concerned with--that is, those whose object is literary or general,
and not scientific. A ‘nonce-word’ (and the use might be extended to
‘nonce-phrase’ and ‘nonce-sense’--the latter not necessarily, though it
may be sometimes, equivalent to nonsense) is one that is constructed
to serve a need of the moment. The writer is not seriously putting
forward his word as one that is for the future to have an independent
existence; he merely has a fancy to it for this once. The motive may be
laziness, avoidance of the obvious, love of precision, or desire for a
brevity or pregnancy that the language as at present constituted does
not seem to him to admit of. The first two are bad motives, the third
a good, and the last a mixed one. But in all cases it may be said that
a writer should not indulge in these unless he is quite sure he is a
good writer.
The couch-bunk under the window to conceal the _summerly
recliner_.--MEREDITH.
The adjective is a nonce-sense, _summerly_ elsewhere meaning ‘such as
one expects in summer’; the noun is a nonce-word.
In Christian art we may clearly trace a parallel _regenesis_.--SPENCER.
Opposition on the part of the _loquently_ weaker of the
pair.--MEREDITH.
Picturesquities.--SLADEN.
The _verberant_ twang of a musical instrument.--MEREDITH.
A Russian army is a solid machine, as many _war-famous_ generals have
found to their cost.--_Times._
Such compounds are of course much used; but they are ugly when they are
otiose; it might be worth while to talk of a war-famous brewer, or of
a peace-famous general, just as we often have occasion to speak of a
carpet-knight, but of a carpet-broom only if it is necessary to guard
against mistake.
Russia’s disposition is aggressive.... Japan may conquer, but she will
not aggress.--_Times._
Though _aggress_ is in the dictionary, every one will feel that it is
rare enough to be practically a neologism, and here a nonce-word. The
mere fact that it has never been brought into common use, though so
obvious a form, is sufficient condemnation.
She did not answer at once, for, in her rather _super-sensitized_
mood, it seemed to her....--E. F. BENSON.
The word is, we imagine, a loan from photography. Expressions so
redolent of the laboratory are as well left alone unless the metaphor
they suggest is really valuable. Perhaps, if _rather_ and _super-_ were
cancelled against each other, _sensitive_ might suffice.
Notoriously and unctuously _rectitudinous_.--_Westminster Gazette._
Some readers will remember the origin of this in Cecil Rhodes’s famous
remark about the unctuous rectitude of British statesmen, and the
curious epidemic of words in _-ude_ that prevailed for some months in
the newspapers, especially the _Westminster Gazette_. _Correctitude_, a
needless variant for _correctness_, has not perished like the rest.
We only refer to it again because Mr. Balfour clearly thinks it
necessary to vindicate his claims to correctitude. This desire for
correctitude is amusingly illustrated in the _Outlook_ this week,
which....--_Westminster Gazette._
All these formations, whether happy or the reverse, may be assumed to
be conscious ones: the few that now follow--we shall call them new even
if they have a place in dictionaries, since they are certainly not
current--are possibly unconscious:
The minutes to dinner-time were numbered, and they _briskened_ their
steps back to the house.--E. F. BENSON. (quickened)
He was in some amazement at himself ... _remindful_ of the different
nature....--MEREDITH. (mindful)
_Remindful_ should surely mean ‘which reminds’, not ‘who remembers’.
Persistent _insuccess_, however, did not prevent a repetition of the
same question.--_Times._ (failure)
The best safeguard against any _deplacement_ of the centre of gravity
in the Dual Monarchy.--_Times._ (displacement)
Which would condemn the East to a long period of _unquiet_.--_Times._
(unrest)
Mere slips, very likely. If it is supposed that therefore they are not
worth notice, the answer is that they are indeed quite unimportant in
a writer who allows himself only one such slip in fifty or a hundred
pages; but one who is unfortunate enough to make a second before the
first has faded from the memory becomes at once a suspect. We are
uneasily on the watch for his next lapse, wonder whether he is a
foreigner or an Englishman not at home in the literary language, and
fall into that critical temper which is the last he would choose to be
read in.
The next two examples are quite distinct from these--words clearly
created, or exhumed, because the writer feels that his style requires
galvanizing into energy:
A man of a cold, _perseverant_ character.--CARLYLE.
Robbed of the just fruits of her victory by the arbitrary and
_forceful_ interference of outside Powers.--_Times._
All the specimens yet mentioned have been productions of individual
caprice: the writer for some reason or other took a liberty, or made a
mistake, with one expression; he might as well, or as ill, have done
it with another, enjoying his little effect, or taking his little nap,
at this moment or at that. But there are other neologisms of a very
different kind, which come into existence as the crystallization of a
political tendency or a movement in ideas. _Prime Minister_, _Cabinet_,
_His Majesty’s Opposition_, have been neologisms of this kind in their
day, all standing for particular developments of the party system,
and all of them, probably, in more or less general use before they
made their way into books. Such words in our day are _racial_, and
_intellectuals_. The former is an ugly word, the strangeness of which
is due to our instinctive feeling that the termination _-al_ has no
business at the end of a word that is not obviously Latin. Nevertheless
the new importance that has been attached for the last half century
to the idea of common descent as opposed to that of mere artificial
nationality has made _a_ word necessary. Racial is not _the_ word
that might have been ornamental as well as useful; but it is too well
established to be now uprooted. _Intellectuals_ is still apologized for
in 1905 by _The Spectator_ as ‘a convenient neologism’. It is already
familiar to all who give any time to observing continental politics,
though the Index to the _Encyclopaedia_ (1903) knows it not. A use has
not yet been found for the word in home politics, as far as we have
observed; but the fact that intellect in any country is recognized
as a definite political factor is noteworthy; and we should hail
_intellectuals_ as a good omen for the progress of the world.
These, and the scientific, are the sort of neologism that may fairly be
welcomed. But there is this distinction. With the strictly scientific
words, writers have not the power to decide whether they shall accept
them or not; they must be content to take submissively what the men of
science choose to give them, they being as much within their rights in
naming what they have discovered or invented as an explorer in naming
a new mountain, or an American founder a new city. _Minneapolis_,
_Pikeville_, and _Pennsylvania_, may have a barbaric sound, but there
they are; so _telegram_, or _aestho-physiology_. The proud father
of the latter (Herbert Spencer) confesses to having docked it of a
syllable; and similarly Mr. Lecky writes of ‘a eudaemometer measuring
with accuracy the degrees of happiness realized by men in different
ages’; consequently there will be some who will wish these long words
longer, though more who will wish them shorter; but grumble as we may,
the _patria potestas_ is indefeasible. On the other hand, with such
words as _racial_, _intellectuals_, it is open to any writer, if he
does not like the word that threatens to occupy an obviously vacant
place, to offer a substitute, or at least to avoid giving currency to
what he disapproves. It will be remembered that when it was proposed to
borrow from France what we now know as the closure, it seemed certain
for some time that with the thing we should borrow the name, _clôture_;
a press campaign resulted in _closure_, for which we may be thankful.
The same might have been done for, or rather against, _racial_, if only
some one had thought of it in time.
AMERICANISMS
Though we take these separately from foreign words, which will follow
next, the distinction is purely _pro forma_; Americanisms are foreign
words, and should be so treated. To say this is not to insult the
American language. If any one were asked to give an Americanism without
a moment’s delay, he would be more likely than not to mention _I
guess_. Inquiry into it would at once bear out the American contention
that what we are often rude enough to call their vulgarisms are in fact
good old English. _I gesse_ is a favourite expression of Chaucer’s,
and the sense he sometimes gives it is very finely distinguished from
the regular Yankee use. But though it is good old English, it is not
good new English. If we use the phrase--parenthetically, that is, like
Chaucer and the Yankees--, we have it not from Chaucer, but from the
Yankees, and with their, not his, exact shade of meaning. It must be
recognized that they and we, in parting some hundreds of years ago,
started on slightly divergent roads in language long before we did so
in politics. In the details of divergence, they have sometimes had
the better of us. _Fall_ is better on the merits than _autumn_, in
every way: it is short, Saxon (like the other three season names),
picturesque; it reveals its derivation to every one who uses it, not to
the scholar only, like _autumn_; and we once had as good a right to it
as the Americans; but we have chosen to let the right lapse, and to use
the word now is no better than larceny.
The other side of this is that we are entitled to protest when any one
assumes that because a word of less desirable character is current
American, it is therefore to be current English. There are certain
American verbs that remind Englishmen of the barbaric taste illustrated
by such town names as Memphis and those mentioned in the last section.
A very firm stand ought to be made against _placate_, _transpire_[3],
and _antagonize_, all of which have English patrons.
There is a real danger of our literature’s being americanized, and that
not merely in details of vocabulary--which are all that we are here
directly concerned with--but in its general tone. Mr. Rudyard Kipling
is a very great writer, and a patriotic; his influence is probably the
strongest that there is at present in the land; but he and his school
are americanizing us. His style exhibits a sort of remorseless and
scientific efficiency in the choice of epithets and other words that
suggests the application of coloured photography to description; the
camera is superseding the human hand. We quote two sentences from the
first page of a story, and remark that in pre-Kipling days none of the
words we italicize would have been likely; now, they may be matched on
nearly every page of an ‘up-to-date’ novelist:
Between the snow-white cutter and the flat-topped, _honey-coloured_[4]
rocks on the beach the green water was troubled with _shrimp-pink_
prisoners-of-war bathing.--KIPLING.
Far out, a three-funnelled Atlantic transport with turtle bow and
stern _waddled_ in from the deep sea.--KIPLING.
The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods,
and we hope it may be developed in America rather than here. We cannot
go more fully into the point in a digression like this. But though
we have digressed, it has not been quite without purpose: any one
who agrees with us in this will see in it an additional reason for
jealously excluding American words and phrases. The English and the
American language and literature are both good things; but they are
better apart than mixed.
Fix up (organize), back of (behind), anyway (at any rate), standpoint
(point of view), back-number (antiquated), right along (continuously),
some (to some extent), just (quite, or very--‘just lovely’), may be
added as typical Americanisms of a different kind from either _fall_
or _antagonize_; but it is not worth while to make a large collection;
every one knows an Americanism, at present, when he sees it; how long
that will be true is a more anxious question.
And, _back of_ all that, a circumstance which gave great force to all
that either has ever said, the rank and file, the great mass of the
people on either side, were determined....--CHOATE.
Hand-power, _back-number_, flint-and-steel reaping machines.--KIPLING.
Some of them have in secret approximated their _standpoint_ to that
laid down by Count Tisza in his programme speech.--_Times._
We close the section by putting _placate_ and _antagonize_ in the
pillory. It may be remarked that the latter fits in well enough with
Emerson’s curious bizarre style. Another use of _just_ is pilloried
also, because it is now in full possession of our advertisement
columns, and may be expected to insinuate itself into the inside sheets
before long[5].
When once _placated_ the Senators will be reluctant to deprive honest
creditors of their rights.--_Spectator._
It is true the subject is American politics; but even so, we should
have liked to see this stranger received ceremoniously as well as
politely, that is, with quotation marks; the italics are ours only.
The old Imperial naval policy, which has failed conspicuously
because it _antagonized_ the unalterable supremacy of Colonial
nationalism.--_Times._
If Fate follows and limits power, power attends and _antagonizes_
Fate.--EMERSON.
Have you ever thought _just how much_ it would mean to the home
if....--_Advertisements passim._
FOREIGN WORDS
The usual protest must be made, to be treated no doubt with the usual
disregard. The difficulty is that some French, Latin, and other words
are now also English, though the fiction that they are not is still
kept up by italics and (with French words) conscientious efforts
at pronunciation. Such are _tête-à-tête_, _ennui_, _status quo_,
_raison d’être_, _eirenicon_, _négligé_, and perhaps hundreds more.
The novice who is told to avoid foreign words, and then observes that
these English words are used freely, takes the rule for a counsel of
perfection--not accepted by good writers, and certainly not to be
accepted by him, who is sometimes hard put to it for the ornament that
he feels his matter deserves. Even with the best will in the world,
he finds that there are many words of which he cannot say whether
they are yet English or not, as _gaucherie_, _bêtise_, _camaraderie_,
_soupçon_, so that there is no drawing the line. He can only be told
that all words not English in appearance are in English writing ugly
and not pretty, and that they are justified only (1) if they afford
much the shortest or clearest, if not the only way to the meaning (this
is usually true of the words we have called really English), or (2) if
they have some special appropriateness of association or allusion in
the sentence they stand in. This will be illustrated by some of the
diplomatic words given below, and by the quotation containing the word
_chasseur_.
Some little assistance may, however, be given on details.
1. To say _distrait_ instead of _absent_ or _absent-minded_, _bien
entendu_ for _of course_, _sans_ for _without_ (it is, like _I guess_,
good old English but not good English), _quand même_ for _anyhow_,
_penchant_ for _liking_ or _fancy_, _rédaction_ for _editing_ or
_edition_, _coûte que coûte_ for _at all costs_, _Schadenfreude_ for
_malicious pleasure_, _œuvre_ for _work_, _alma mater_ (except with
strong extenuating circumstances) for _University_--is pretension and
nothing else. The substitutes we have offered are not insisted upon;
they may be wrong, or not the best; but English can be found for all
these. Moreover, what was said of special association or allusion may
apply; to call a luncheon _déjeuner_, however, as in the appended
extract, because it is to be eaten by Frenchmen, is hardly covered by
this, though it is a praise-worthy attempt at what the critics call
giving an atmosphere.
It was resolved that on the occasion of the visit of the French Fleet
in August the Corporation should offer the officers an appropriate
reception and invite them to a _déjeuner_ at the Guildhall.--_Times._
But speaking broadly, what a writer effects by using these ornaments is
to make us imagine him telling us he is a wise fellow and one that hath
everything handsome about him, including a gentlemanly acquaintance
with the French language. Some illustrations follow:
Motorists lose more than they know by _bêtises_ of this kind.--_Times._
His determination to conduct them to a successful issue _coûte que
coûte_ might result in complications.--_Times._
The gloom which the Russian troubles have caused at Belgrade has
to some extent been lightened by a certain _Schadenfreude_ over
the difficulties with which the Hungarian crisis threatens the
neighbouring Monarchy.--_Times._
A recent reperusal ... left the impression which is so often produced
by the exhibition in bulk of the _œuvre_ of a deceased Royal
Academician--it has emphasized Schiller’s deficiencies without laying
equal emphasis on his merits.--_Times._
The following are instances of less familiar French or Latin words used
wantonly:
So, one would have thought, the fever of New York was abated
here, even as the smoke of the city was but a gray _tache_ on the
horizon.--E. F. BENSON.
Either we know that _tache_ means stain, or we do not. If we do, we
cannot admire our novelist’s superior learning: if we do not, we
must be doubtful whether we grasp the whole of his possibly valuable
meaning. His calculation is perhaps that we shall know it, and shall
feel complimented by his just confidence in us.
When the normal convention governing the relations between victors and
vanquished is duly re-established, it will be time to chronicle the
conjectures relating to peace in some other part of a journal than
that devoted to _faits divers_.--_Times._
It is true _The Times_ does not condescend to an Odds-and-Ends,
or a Miscellaneous column; but many other English newspapers do,
under various titles; and the _Times_ writer might have thrown the
handkerchief to one of them.
But times have changed, and this procedure enters into the category
of _vieille escrime_ when not employed by a master hand and made to
correspond superficially with facts.--_Times._
In relation to military organization we are still in the flourishing
region of the _vieilles perruques_.--_Times._
The users of these two varieties, who, to judge from the title at the
head of their articles, are one and the same person must have something
newer than _vieux jeu_. Just as that has begun to be intelligible to
the rest of us, it becomes itself _vieux jeu_ to them. It is like
the man of highest fashion changing his hat-brim because the man of
middling fashion has found the pattern of it.
The familiar gentleman burglar, who, having played wolf to his fellows
_qua_ financier, journalist, and barrister, undertakes to raise
burglary from being a trade at least to the lupine level of those
professions.--_Times._
It is quite needless, and hardly correct, to use _qua_ instead of _as_
except where a sharp distinction is being made between two coexistent
functions or points of view, as in the next quotation. Uganda needs
quite different treatment if it is regarded as a country from what it
needs as a campaigning ground:
For this point must be borne constantly in mind--the money spent to
date was spent with a view only to strategy. The real development of
the country _qua_ country must begin to-day.--_Times._
The reader would not care to have my impressions thereanent; and,
indeed, it would not be worth while to record them, as they were the
impressions of an _ignorance crasse_.--C. BRONTË.
The writer who allows Charlotte Brontë’s extraordinarily convincing
power of presentment to tempt him into imitating her many literary
peccadilloes will reap disaster. _Thereanent_ is as annoying as
_ignorance crasse_.
It was he who by doctoring the Ems dispatch in 1870 converted a
_chamade_ into a _fanfaronnade_ and thus rendered the Franco-German
war inevitable.--_Times._
We can all make a shrewd guess at the meaning of _fanfaronnade_: how
many average readers have the remotest idea of what a _chamade_[6] is?
and is the function of newspapers to force upon us against our will the
buying of French dictionaries?
2. Among the diplomatic words, _entente_ may pass as suggesting
something a little more definite and official than _good
understanding_; _démenti_ because, though it denotes the same as
_denial_ or _contradiction_, it connotes that no more credence need
be given to it than is usually given to the ‘honest men sent to lie
abroad for the good of their country’; as for _ballon d’essai_, we see
no advantage in it over _kite_, and _flying a kite_, which are good
English; it is, however, owing to foreign correspondents’ perverted
tastes, already more familiar. The words italicized in the following
quotations are still more questionable:
The two Special Correspondents in Berlin of the leading morning
newspapers, the _Matin_ and the _Écho de Paris_, report a marked
_détente_ in the situation.--_Times._
_Entente_ is comprehensible to every one; but with _détente_ many of us
are in the humiliating position of not knowing whether to be glad or
sorry.
All the great newspapers have insisted upon the inopportuneness of the
_démarche_ of William II.--_Times._ (proceeding)
The _entourage_ and counsellors of the Sultan continue to remain
sceptical.--_Times._
Mere laziness, even if the word means anything different from
_counsellors_; but the writer has at least given us an indication that
it is only verbiage, by revealing his style in _continue to remain_.
In diplomatic circles the whole affair is looked upon as an _acte de
malveillance_ towards the Anglo-French _entente_.--_Times._
You have been immensely amused, cyrenaically enjoying the moment
for the moment’s sake, but looking before and after (as you cannot
help looking in the theatre) you have been disconcerted and
_dérouté_.--_Times._
In spite, however, of this denial and of other official _démentis_,
the Italian Press still seems dissatisfied.--_Times._
In this there is clearly not the distinction that we suggested between
_denial_ and _démenti_--the only thing that could excuse the latter.
We have here merely one of those elegant variations treated of in the
chapter ‘Airs and Graces’.
3. It sometimes occurs to a writer that he would like to avail himself
of a foreign word or phrase, whether to make a genuine point or to
show that he has the gift of tongues, and yet not keep his less
favoured readers in the dark; he accordingly uses a literal translation
instead of the actual words. It may fairly be doubted whether this is
ever worth while; but there is all the difference in the world, as we
shall presently exemplify in a pair of contrasted quotations, between
the genuine and the ostentatious use. The most familiar phrase thus
treated is _cela va sans dire_; we have of our own _I need hardly
say_, _needless to remark_, and many other varieties; and the French
phrase has no wit or point in it to make it worth aping; we might
just as well say, in similar German or French English (whichever of
the two languages we had it from), _that understands itself_; each of
them has to us the quaintness of being non-idiomatic, and no other
merit whatever. A single word that we have taken in the same way is
more defensible, because it did, when first introduced here, possess
a definite meaning that no existing English word had: _epochmaking_
is a literal translation, or transliteration almost, from German. We
may regret that we took it, now; for it will always have an alien look
about it; and, recent in English as it is, it has already lost its
meaning; it belongs, in fact, to one of those word-series of which
each member gets successively worn out. _Epochmaking_ is now no more
than _remarkable_, as witness this extract from a speech by the Lord
Chancellor:
The banquet to M. Berryer and the banquet to Mr. Benjamin, both of
them very important, and to my mind _epochmaking_ occasions.--LORD
HALSBURY.
The verb _to orient_ is a Gallicism of much the same sort, and _the
half-world_ is perhaps worse:
In his quality of eligible bachelor he had no objections at any time
to conversing with a goodlooking girl. Only he wished very much that
he could _orient_ this particular one.--CROCKETT.
High society is represented by ... Lady Beauminster, the half-world
by Mrs. Montrose, loveliness and luckless innocence by her daughter
Helen.--_Times._
The next extract is perhaps from the pen of a French-speaker trying
to write English: but it is not worse than what the English writer who
comes below him does deliberately:
Our enveloping movement, which has been proceeding _since several
days_.--_Times._
Making every allowance for special circumstances, the manner in which
these amateur soldiers of seven weeks’ service acquitted themselves
compels one ‘furiously to think’.--_Westminster Gazette._
A warning may be given that it is dangerous to translate if you do not
know for certain what the original means. To ask what the devil some
one was doing in that _gallery_ is tempting, and fatal.
Appended are the passages illustrating the two different motives for
translation:
If we could take this assurance at its face value and _to the foot of
the letter_, we should have to conclude....--_Times._
It will be observed (_a_) that _literally_ gives the meaning perfectly;
(_b_) that _to the foot of the letter_ is absolutely unintelligible to
any one not previously acquainted with _au pied de la lettre_; (_c_)
that there is no wit or other admirable quality in the French itself.
The writer is meanly admiring mean things; nothing could possibly be
more fatuous than such half-hearted gallicizing.
I thought afterwards, but it was _the spirit of the staircase_, what a
pity it was that I did not stand at the door with a hat, saying, ‘Give
an obol to Belisarius’.--MORLEY.
The French have had the wit to pack into the words _esprit d’escalier_
the common experience that one’s happiest retorts occur to one only
when the chance of uttering them is gone, the door is closed, and one’s
feet are on the staircase. That is well worth introducing to an English
audience; the only question is whether it is of any use to translate it
without explanation. No one will know what _spirit of the staircase_ is
who is not already familiar with _esprit d’escalier_; and even he who
is may not recognize it in disguise, seeing that _esprit_ does not mean
spirit (which suggests a goblin lurking in the hall clock), but wit.
We cannot refrain from adding a variation that deprives _au pied de la
lettre_ even of its quaintness:
The tone of Russian official statements on the subject is not
encouraging, but then, perhaps, they ought not to be taken at the
letter.--_Times._
4. Closely connected with this mistake of translating is the other
of taking liberties with foreign phrases in their original form,
dovetailing them into the construction of an English sentence when they
do not lend themselves to it. In Latin words and phrases, other cases
should always be changed to the nominative, whatever the government in
the English sentence, unless the Latin word that accounted for the case
is included in the quotation. It will be admitted that all the four
passages below are ugly:
The whole party were engaged _ohne Rast_ with a prodigious quantity of
_Hast_ in a continuous social effort.--E. F. BENSON.
German, in which so few Englishmen are at their ease, is the last among
the half-dozen best-known languages to play these tricks with. The
facetiousness here is indescribably heavy.
The clergy in rochet, alb, and other best _pontificalibus_.--CARLYLE.
The intention is again facetious; but the incongruity between a Latin
inflected ablative and English uninflected objectives is a kind of
piping to which no man can dance; that the English _in_ and the Latin
_in_ happen to be spelt alike is no defence; it is clear that _in_
is here English, not Latin; either _in pontificalibus_, or _in other
pontificalia_.
The feeling that one is an _antecedentem scelestum_ after whom a sure,
though lame, Nemesis is hobbling....--TROLLOPE.
_Antecedens scelestus_ is necessary.
..., which were so evident in the days of the early Church, are now
_non est_.--_Daily Telegraph._
All things considered, I wonder they were not _non est_ long
ago.--_Times._
Such maltreatment of _non est inventus_, which seems to have amused
some past generations, is surely now as stale and unprofitable as
_individual_ itself.
5. A special caution may be given about some words and phrases that
either are shams, or are used in wrong senses. Of the first kind are
_nom de plume_, _morale_. The French for the name that an author
chooses to write under is _nom de guerre_. We, in the pride of our
knowledge that _guerre_ means war, have forgotten that there is such a
thing as metaphor, assumed that another phrase is required for literary
campaigning, thereupon ascertained the French for pen, and so evolved
_nom de plume_. It is unfortunate; for we now have to choose between a
blunder and a pedantry; but writers who know the facts are beginning to
reconcile themselves to seeming pedantic for a time, and reviving _nom
de guerre_.
The French for what we call _morale_, writing it in italics under the
impression that it is French, is actually _moral_. The other is so
familiar, however, that it is doubtful whether it would not be better
to drop the italics, keep the _-e_, and tell the French that they can
spell their word as they please, and we shall do the like with ours. So
Mr. Kipling:
The Gaul, ever an artist, breaks enclosure to study the morale
[_sic_], at the present day, of the British sailorman.--KIPLING.
In the second class, of phrases whose meaning is mistaken, we choose
_scandalum magnatum_, _arrière-pensée_, _phantasmagoria_, and _cui
bono?_
_Scandalum magnatum_ is a favourite with the lower-class novelist who
takes _magnatum_ for a participle meaning _magnified_, and finds the
combination less homely than _a shocking affair_. It is a genitive
plural noun, and the amplified translation of the two words, which we
borrow from the _Encyclopaedia_, runs: ‘Slander of great men, such as
peers, judges, or great officers of state, whereby discord may arise
within the realm’.
_Arrière-pensée_ we have seen used, with comic intent but sad effect,
for a bustle or dress-improver; and, with sad intent but comic effect,
for an afterthought; it is better confined to its real meaning of an
ulterior object, if indeed we cannot be content with our own language
and use those words instead.
_Phantasmagoria_ is a singular noun; at least the corresponding
French monstrosity, _fantasmagorie_, is unmistakably singular; and,
if used at all in English, it should be so with us too. But the final
_-a_ irresistibly suggests a plural to the valorous writers who are
impressed without being terrified by the unknown; so:
Not that such _phantasmagoria are_ to be compared for a moment with
such desirable things as fashion, fine clothes....--BORROW.
_Cui bono?_ is a notorious trap for journalists. It is naturally
surprising to any one who has not pushed his classics far to be told
that the literal translation of it is not ‘To what good (end)?’ that is
‘What is the good of it?’ but ‘Who benefited?’. The former rendering is
not an absolutely impossible one on the principles of Latin grammar,
which adds to the confusion. But if that were its real meaning it would
be indeed astonishing that it should have become a famous phrase;
the use of it instead of ‘What is the good?’ would be as silly and
gratuitous as our above-mentioned _to the foot of the letter_. Every
scholar knows, however, that _cui bono?_ does deserve to be used, in
its true sense. It is a shrewd and pregnant phrase like _cherchez la
femme_ or _esprit d’escalier_. _Cherchez la femme_ wraps up in itself a
perhaps incorrect but still interesting theory of life--that whenever
anything goes wrong there is a woman at the bottom of it; find her, and
all will be explained. _Cui bono?_ means, as we said, ‘Who benefited?’.
It is a Roman lawyer’s maxim, who held that when you were at a loss to
tell where the responsibility for a crime lay, your best chance was to
inquire who had reaped the benefit of it. It has been worth while to
devote a few lines to this phrase, because nothing could better show at
once what is worth transplanting into English, and what dangers await
any one who uses Latin or French merely because he has a taste for
ornament. In the following quotation the meaning, though most obscurely
expressed, is probably correct; and _cui bono?_ stands for: ‘Where can
the story have come from? why, who will profit by a misunderstanding
between Italy and France? Germany, of course; so doubtless Germany
invented the story’. _Cui bono?_ is quite capable of implying all that;
but a merciful writer will give his readers a little more help:
(Berlin) The news which awakens the most hopeful interest is the
story of a concession to a Franco-Belgian syndicate in the harbour
of Tripoli. There is a manifest desire that the statement should be
confirmed and that it should have the effect of exciting the Italian
people and alienating them from France. _Cui bono?_--_Times._
6. It now only remains to add that there are French words good in
some contexts, and not in others. _Régime_ is good in the combination
_ancien régime_, because that is the briefest way of alluding to the
state of things in France before the Revolution. Further, its use in
the first of the appended passages is appropriate enough, because there
is an undoubted parallel between Russia now and France then. But in the
second, _administration_ ought to be the word:
Throwing a flood of light upon the proceedings of the existing
_régime_ in Russia.--_Times._
He said that the goodwill and friendship of the Milner _régime_ had
resulted in the effective co-operation of the two countries.--_Times._
The word _employé_ is often a long, ugly, and unnatural substitute for
_men_, _workmen_, or _hands_, one of which should have been used in the
first two of the passages below. But it has a value where clerks or
higher degrees are to be included, as in the third passage. It should
be used as seldom as possible, that is all:
The warehouses of the Russian Steamship Company here have been set on
fire by some dismissed _employés_.--_Times._
The _employés_ of the Trans-Caucasian line to-day struck
work.--_Times._
The new project, Article 17, ordains that all _employés_ of the
railways, whatever their rank or the nature of their employment, are
to be considered as public officials.--_Times._
Finally, even words that have not begun to be naturalized may be used
exceptionally when a real point can be gained by it. To say _chasseur_
instead of _sportsman_, _gun_, or other English word, is generally
ridiculous. But our English notion of the French sportsman (right or
wrong) is that he sports not because he likes sport, but because he
likes the picturesque costumes it gives an excuse for. Consequently the
word is quite appropriate in the following:
But the costume of the _chasseurs_--green velvet, very
Robin-Hoody--had been most tasteful.--E. F. BENSON.
FALSE, UGLY, OR NEEDLESS FORMATIONS
1. As a natural link between this section and the last, the practice
of taking French words and spelling them as English may stand first.
With French words that fill a definite blank in English, the time
comes when that should be done if it can. With some words it cannot;
no one has yet seen his way to giving _ennui_ an English look. With
_dishabille_, on the other hand, which appears in the dictionary with
spellings to suit all tastes[7], many attempts have been made. This
word, however, well illustrates the importance of one principle that
should be observed in borrowing from French. Unless the need is a very
crying one, no word should be taken that offers serious difficulties
of pronunciation. In _déshabillé_ are at least two problems (_h_, and
_ll_) of which an Englishman fights shy. The consequence is that,
though its English history dates back some centuries, it is very seldom
heard in conversation; no word not used in conversation becomes a
true native; and _dishabille_ is therefore being gradually ousted by
_négligé_, which can be pronounced without fear. As _dishabille_ is
really quite cut off from _déshabillé_, it is a pity it was not further
deprived of its final _-e_; that would have encouraged us to call it
_dish-abil_, and it might have made good its footing.
_Naïveté_ is another word for which there is a clear use; and though
the Englishman can pronounce it without difficulty if he chooses,
he generally does prefer doing without it altogether to attempting a
precision that strikes him as either undignified or pretentious. It is
therefore to be wished that it might be disencumbered of its diaeresis,
its accent, and its italics. It is true that the first sight of naivety
is an unpleasant shock; but we ought to be glad that the thing has
begun to be done, and in speaking sacrifice our pride of knowledge and
call it _naivety_.
The case of _banality_ is very different. In one sense it has a
stronger claim than _naivety_, its adjective _banal_ being much older
in English than _naïve_; but the old use of _banal_ is as a legal term
connected with feudalism. That use is dead, and its second life is an
independent one; it is now a mere borrowing from French. Whether we
are to accept it or not should be decided by whether we want it; and
with _common_, _commonplace_, _trite_, _trivial_, _mean_, _vulgar_,
all provided with nouns, which again can be eked out with _truism_
and _platitude_, a shift can surely be made without it. It is one of
those foreign feathers, like _intimism_, _intimity_, _femininity_,
_distinction_ and _distinguished_ (the last pair now banalities if
anything was ever banal; so do extremes meet), in which writers of
literary criticism love to parade, and which ordinary persons should do
their best to pluck from them, protesting when there is a chance, and
at all times refusing the compliment of imitation. But perhaps the word
that the critics would most of all delight their readers by forgetting
is _meticulous_.
Before adding an example or two, we draw attention to the danger of
accidentally assimilating a good English word to a French one. _Amende_
is good French; _amends_ is good English; but _amend_ (noun) is neither:
Triviality and over-childishness and naivety.--H. SWEET.
Agrippa himself was primarily a paradox-monger. Many of his successors
were in dead earnest, and their repetition of his ingenuities becomes
_banal_ in the extreme. Bercher himself can by no means be acquitted
of this charge of _banality_.--_Times._
It is significant that the only authorities for _banality_ in the
_Oxford Dictionary_ are Sala, Saintsbury, Dowden, and Browning; but
the volume is dated 1888; and though the word is still used in the
same overpowering proportion by literary critics as opposed to other
writers, its total use has multiplied a hundredfold since then. Our
hope is that the critics may before long feel that it is as banal to
talk about banality as it is now felt by most wellbred people to be
vulgar to talk about vulgarity.
His style, which is pleasant and diffuse without being
_distinguished_, is more suited to the farm and the simple country
life than to the complexities of the human character.--_Times._
His character and that of his wife are sketched with a certain
_distinction_.--_Times._
And yet to look back over the whole is to feel that in one case only
has she really achieved that perfection of _intimism_ which is her
proper goal.--_Times._
The reference to the English nonconformists was a graceful _amend_ to
them for being so passionate an Oxonian and churchman.--MORLEY.
And in her presentation of the mode of life of the respectable middle
classes, the most _meticulous_ critic will not easily catch her
tripping.--_Times._
2. =Formations involving grammatical blunders.= Of these the
possibilities are of course infinite; we must assume that our readers
know the ordinary rules of grammar, and merely, not to pass over the
point altogether, give one or two typical and not too trite instances:
My landlady entered bearing what she called ‘her best lamp’
_alit_.--CORELLI.
This seems to be formed as a past participle from _to alight_, in the
sense of to kindle. It will surprise most people to learn that there
is, or was, such a verb; not only was there, but the form that should
have been used in our sentence, _alight_, is probably by origin the
participle of it. The _Oxford Dictionary_, however, after saying this,
observes that it has now been assimilated to words like _afire_, formed
from the preposition _a-_ and a noun. Whether those two facts are true
of not, it is quite certain that there is no such word as _alit_ in
the sense of lighted or lit, and that the use of it in our days is a
grammatical blunder.[8]
But every year pleaded _stronger_ and _stronger_ for the Earl’s
conception.--J. R. GREEN.
Comparative adverbs of this type must be formed only from those
positive adverbs, which do not use _-ly_, as _hard_, _fast_. We talk
of _going strong_, and we may therefore talk of _going stronger_;
but outside slang we have to choose between _stronglier_--poetical,
exalted, or affected--and _more strongly_.
The silence that _underlaid_ the even voice of the breakers along the
sea front.--KIPLING.
_Lie_ and _lay_ have cost us all some perplexity in childhood. The
distinction is more difficult in the compounds with _over_ and _under_,
because in them _-lie_ is transitive as well as _-lay_, but in a
different sense. Any one who is not sure that he is sound on the point
by instinct must take the trouble to resolve them into _lie over_ or
_lay over_, &c., which at once clears up the doubt. A mistake with the
simple verb is surprising when made, as in the following, by a writer
on grammar:
I met a lad who took a paper from a package that he carried and thrust
it into my unwilling hand. I suspected him of having _laid_ in wait
for the purpose.--R. G. WHITE.
A confusion, perhaps, between _lay wait_ and _lie in wait_.
I am not sure that _yours_ and my efforts would suffice separately;
but yours and mine together cannot possibly fail.
The first _yours_ is quite wrong; it should be _your_. This mistake is
common. The absolute possessives, _ours_ and _yours_, _hers_, _mine_
and _thine_, (with which the poetic or euphonic use of the last two
before vowels has nothing to do) are to be used only as pronouns or
as predicative adjectives, not as attributes to an expressed and
following noun. That they were used by old writers as in our example
is irrelevant. The correct modern usage has now established itself.
We add three sentences from Burke. The relation between _no_ and
_none_ is the same as that between _your_ and _yours_. In the first
sentence, modern usage would write (as the correct _no or but a few_
is uncomfortable) either _few or no_, or _few if any_, or _no rays or
but a few_. For the second we might possibly tolerate _to their as well
as to your own_; or we might write _to their crown as well as to your
own_. The third is quite tolerable as it is; but any one who does not
like the sound can write _and their ancestors and ours_. It must always
be remembered in this as in other constructions, that the choice is
not between a well-sounding blunder and an ill-sounding correctness,
but between an ill and a well sounding correctness. The blunder should
be ruled out, and if the first form of the correct construction that
presents itself does not sound well, another way of putting it must be
looked for; patience will always find it. The flexibility gained by
habitual selection of this kind, which a little cultivation will make
easy and instinctive, is one of the most essential elements in a good
style. For a more important illustration of the same principle, the
remarks on the gerund in the Syntax chapter (p. 120) may be referred to.
Black bodies, reflecting _none_ or but a few rays.--BURKE.
You altered the succession to _theirs_, as well as to your own
crown.--BURKE.
They and we, and _their_ and our ancestors, have been happy under that
system.--BURKE.
3. =Formations violating analogy.=
And then it is its panache, its careless _a-moral_ Renaissance
romance.--_Times._
But she is perfectly natural, and while perfectly _amoral_, no more
immoral than a bird or a kitten.--_Times._
_A-_ (not) is Greek; _moral_ is Latin. It is at least desirable that in
making new words the two languages should not be mixed. The intricate
needs of science may perhaps be allowed to override a literary
principle of this sort; and accordingly the _Oxford Dictionary_
recognizes that _a-_ is compounded with Latin words in scientific and
technical terms, as _a-sexual_; but purely literary workers may be
expected to abstain. The obvious excuse for this formation is that the
Latin negative prefix is already taken up in _immoral_, which means
contrary to morality, while a word is wanted to mean unconcerned with
morality. But with _non_ freely prefixed to adjectives in English
(though not in Latin), there can be no objection to _non-moral_. The
second of our instances is a few weeks later than the first, and the
hyphen has disappeared; so quickly has _The Times_ convinced itself
that _amoral_ is a regular English word.
There was no social or economic jealousy between them, no _racial_
aversion.--_Times._
Concessions which, besides damaging Hungary by raising _racial_ and
_language_ questions of all kinds, would....--_Times._
The action of foreign countries as to their _coastal_ trade.--_Times._
Her riverine trade.--_Westminster Gazette._
It has been already stated that _-al_ is mainly confined to
unmistakable Latin stems. There is _whimsical_; and there may be others
that break the rule, though the _Oxford Dictionary_ (_-al suffix_,
_-ical suffix_, _-ial suffix_) gives no exceptions. The ugly words
_racial_ and _coastal_ themselves might well be avoided except in the
rare cases where _race_ and _coast_ used adjectivally will not do
the work (they would in the present instances); and they should not
be made precedents for new formations. If _language_ is better than
_linguistic_, much more _race_ than _racial_; similarly, _river_ than
_riverine_.
What she was pleased to term their superior intelligence, and more
_real_ and _reliable_ probity.--C. BRONTË (_Villette_, 1853).
It is absurd at this time of day to make a fuss about the word. It
is with us and will remain with us, whatever pedants and purists may
say. In such cases _obsta principiis_ is the only hope; _reliable_
might once have been suppressed, perhaps; it cannot now. But it is
so fought over, even to-day, that a short discussion of it may be
looked for. The objection to it is obvious: you do not rely a thing;
therefore the thing cannot be reliable; it should be rely-on-able (like
_come-at-able_). Some of the analogies pleaded for it are perhaps
irrelevant--as _laughable_, _available_. For these _may_ be formed
from the nouns _laugh_, _avail_, since _-able_ is not only gerundival
(capable of being laughed at), but also adjectival (connected with a
laugh); this has certainly happened with _seasonable_; but that will
not help _reliable_, which by analogy should be _relianceable_. It is
more to the point to remark that with _reliable_ must go _dispensable_
(with _indispensable_) and _dependable_, both quite old words, and
_disposable_ (in its commoner sense); no one, as far as we know,
objects to these and others like them; _reliable_ is made into a
scapegoat. The word itself, moreover, besides its wide popularity, is
now of respectable antiquity, dating at least from Coleridge. It may
be added that it is probably to the campaign against it that we owe
such passive monstrosities as ‘ready to be availed of’ for _available_,
which is, as we said, possibly not open to the same objection as
_reliable_.
I have heretofore designated the misuse of certain words as
_Briticisms_.--R. G. WHITE.
Britannic, Britannicism; British, Britishism. Britic?
4. =Needless, though correct formations.=
The _sordor_ and filths of nature, the sun shall dry up.--EMERSON.
As _candeo candor_, _ardeo ardor_, so--we are to understand--_sordeo
sordor_. The Romans, however, never felt that they needed the word; and
it is a roundabout method first to present them with a new word and
then to borrow it from them; for it will be observed that we have no
living suffix _-or_ in English, nor, if we had, anything nearer than
_sordid_ to attach it to. Perhaps Emerson thought _sordor_ was a Latin
word.
Merely nodding his head as an _enjoinder_ to be careful.--DICKENS.
As _rejoin rejoinder_, so _enjoin enjoinder_. The word is not given
in the _Oxford Dictionary_, from which it seems likely that Dickens
invented it, consciously or unconsciously. The only objection to
such a word is that its having had to wait so long, in spite of its
obviousness, before being made is a strong argument against the
necessity of it. We may regret that _injunction_ holds the field,
having a much less English appearance; but it does; and in language the
old-established that can still do the work is not to be turned out for
the new-fangled that might do it a shade better, but must first get
itself known and accepted.
_Oppositely_, the badness of a walk that is shuffling, and an
utterance that is indistinct is alleged.--SPENCER.
This, on the other hand, is an archaism, now obsolete. Why it should
not have lived is a mystery; but it has not; and to write it is to give
one’s sentence the air of an old curiosity shop.
Again, as if to _intensate_ the influences that are not of race, what
we think of when we talk of English traits really narrows itself to a
small district.--EMERSON.
A favourite with those allied experimenters in words, Emerson and
Carlyle. A word meaning _to make intense_ is necessary; and there
are plenty of parallels for this particular form. But Coleridge had
already made _intensify_, introducing it with an elaborate apology in
which he confessed that it sounded uncouth. It is uncouth no longer;
if it had never existed, perhaps _intensate_ would now have been so no
longer, uncouthness being, both etymologically and otherwise, a matter
of strangeness as against familiarity. It is better to form words only
where there is a clear demand for them.
5. =Long and short rivals.= The following examples illustrate a foolish
tendency. From the adjective _perfect_ we form the verb _to perfect_,
and from that again the noun _perfection_; to take a further step
forward to a verb _to perfection_ instead of returning to the verb
_to perfect_ is a superfluity of naughtiness. From the noun _sense_
we make the adjective _sensible_; it is generally quite needless to
go forward to _sensibleness_ instead of back to our original noun
_sense_. To _quieten_ is often used by hasty writers who have not
time to remember that _quiet_ is a verb. With _ex tempore_ ready to
serve either as adverb or as adjective, why make _extemporaneous_
or _extemporaneously_? As to _contumacity_, the writer was probably
unaware that _contumacy_ existed. _Contumacity_ might be formed from
_contumax_, like _audacity_ from _audax_. The Romans had only the short
forms _audacia_, _contumacia_, which should have given us _audacy_ as
well as _contumacy_; but because our ancestors burdened themselves with
an extra syllable in one we need not therefore do so in the other.
The inner, religiously moral _perfectioning_ of individuals.--_Times._
She liked the quality of mind which may be broadly called
_sensibleness_.--_Times._
Broadly, or lengthily?
M. Delcassé, speaking _extemporaneously_ but with notes,
said....--_Times._
And now, Mdlle St. Pierre’s affected interference provoked
_contumacity_.--C. BRONTË.
It is often a very easy thing to act _prudentially_, but alas! too
often only after we have toiled to our prudence through a forest of
delusions.--DE QUINCEY.
_Prudent_ gives _prudence_, and _prudence_ _prudential_; the latter
has its use: prudential considerations are those in which prudence is
allowed to outweigh other motives; they may be prudent without being
prudential, and vice versa. But before using _prudentially_ we should
be quite sure that we mean something different from _prudently_. So
again _partially_, which should be reserved as far as possible for the
meaning _with partiality_, is now commonly used for _partly_:[9]
The series of administrative reforms planned by the Convention had
been _partially_ carried into effect before the meeting of Parliament
in 1654; but the work was pushed on.--J. R. GREEN.
That the gravity of the situation is _partially_ appreciated by the
bureaucracy may be inferred from....--_Times._
_Excepting_, instead of _except_, is to be condemned when there is
no need for it. We say _not excepting_, or _not even excepting_, or
_without excepting_; but where the exception is allowed, not rejected,
the short form is the right one, as a comparison of the following
examples will show:
Of all societies ... _not even excepting_ the Roman Republic, England
has been the most emphatically ... political.--MORLEY.
The Minister was obliged to present the Budget before May each year,
_excepting_ in the event of the Cortes having been dissolved.--_Times._
The sojourn of belligerent ships in French waters has never been
limited _excepting_ by certain clearly defined rules.--_Times._
_Excepting_ the English, French, and Austrian journalists present, no
one had been admitted.--_Times._
Innumerable other needless lengthenings might be produced, from
which we choose only _preventative_ for _preventive_, and _to
experimentalize_ for _to experiment_.
On the other hand, when usage has differentiated a long and a short
form either of which might originally have served, the distinction must
be kept. _Immovable_ and _irremovable_ judges are different things; the
shorter word has been wrongly chosen in:
By suspending conscription and restoring the _immovability_ of the
Judges.--_Times._
6. =Merely ugly formations.=
_Bureaucracy._
The termination _-cracy_ is now so freely applied that it is too late
to complain of this except on the ground of ugliness. It may be pointed
out, however, that the very special ugliness of _bureaucracy_ is due
to the way its mongrel origin is flaunted in our faces by the telltale
syllable _-eau-_; it is to be hoped that formations similar in this
respect may be avoided.
An ordinary reader, if asked what was the main impression given by the
_Short History of the English People_, would answer that it was the
impression of picturesqueness and _vividity_.--BRYCE.
In sound, there can be no question between _vividity_ with its
fourfold repetition of the same vowel sound, its two dentals to add
to the ugliness of its two _v_’s, and the comparatively inoffensive
_vividness_.
We conclude with deprecating the addition of _-ly_ to participles in
_-ed_. Some people are so alive to the evil sound of it that they
write _determinately_ for _determinedly_; that will not do either,
because _determinate_ does not mean _determined_ in the required
sense. A periphrasis, or an adjective or Latin participle with _-ly_,
as _resolutely_, should be used. _Implied_ is as good a word as
_implicit_, but _impliedly_ is by no means so good as _implicitly_.
Several instances are given, for cumulative effect. Miss Corelli makes
a mannerism of this.
Dr. John and his mother were in their finest mood, contending
_animatedly_ with each other the whole way.--C. BRONTË.
Where the gate opens, or the gateless path turns aside
_trustedly_.--RUSKIN.
‘That’s not a very kind speech,’ I said somewhat _vexedly_.--CORELLI.
However, I _determinedly_ smothered all premonitions.--CORELLI.
I saw one or two passers-by looking at me so _surprisedly_ that I came
to the conclusion....--_Corelli._
I stared _bewilderedly_ up at the stars.--_Corelli._
It should be added that to really established adverbs of this form, as
_advisedly_, _assuredly_, _hurriedly_, there is no objection whatever;
but new ones are ugly.
SLANG
The place of slang is in real life. There, an occasional indulgence
in it is an almost necessary concession to our gregarious humanity;
he who declines altogether to let his speech be influenced by his
neighbours’ tricks, and takes counsel only of pure reason, is setting
up for more than man. _Awfully nice_ is an expression than which few
could be sillier; but to have succeeded in going through life without
saying it a certain number of times is as bad as to have no redeeming
vice. Further, the writer who deals in conversation may sometimes find
it necessary, by way of characterizing his speakers, to put slang in
their mouths; if he is wise he will make the least possible use of this
resource; and to interlard the non-conversational parts of a book or
article with slang, quotation marks or no quotation marks, is as bad
as interlarding with French. Foreign words and slang are, as spurious
ornaments, on the same level. The italics, but not the quotation marks,
in these examples are ours:
When the madness motif was being treated on the stage, Shakespeare (as
was the custom of his theatre) treated it ‘_for all it was worth_’,
careless of the boundaries between feigning and reality.--_Times._
But even this situation ‘_peters out_’, the wife being sent
away with her fate undecided, and the husband, represented as a
‘forcible-feeble’ person by the dramatist and as a feeble person, tout
court, by the actor....--_Times._
M. Baron the younger is amusing as the ‘_bounder_’ Olivier.--_Times._
Asking ourselves this question about Mr. Thurston’s play, we find
that it has given us a ha’porth of pleasure to an intolerable deal of
boredom. With its primary postulate, ‘_steep_’ as it is, we will not
quarrel.--_Times._
They will find no subtlety in it, no literary art, no profundity of
feeling; but they will assuredly find breadth, colour, and strength.
It is a play that hits you, as the children say, ‘_bang in the
eye_’.--_Times._
They derive no advantage from schemes of land settlement from which
the man who has broken the land in _gets ‘the boot’_, the voter gets
the land, the Government gets the vote, and the London labour market
gets the risk.--_Times._
The effect of using quotation marks with slang is merely to convert a
mental into a moral weakness. When they are not used, we may mercifully
assume that the writer does not know the difference between slang and
good English, and sins in ignorance: when they are, he is telling us,
I know it is naughty, but then it is nice. Most of us would rather be
taken for knaves than for fools; and so the quotation marks are usually
there.
With this advice--never to use slang except in dialogue, and there
as little as may be--we might leave the subject, except that the
suggestion we have made about the unconscious use of slang seems to
require justifying. To justify it, we must attempt some analysis,
however slight, of different sorts of slang.
To the ordinary man, of average intelligence and middle-class position,
slang comes from every direction, from above, from below, and from all
sides, as well as from the centre. What comes from some directions
he will know for slang, what comes from others he may not. He may be
expected to recognize words from below. Some of these are shortenings,
by the lower classes, of words whose full form conveys no clear
meaning, and is therefore useless, to them. An antiquated example
is _mob_, for _mobile vulgus_. That was once slang, and is now good
English. A modern one is _bike_, which will very likely be good English
also in time. But though its brevity is a strong recommendation, and
its uncouthness probably no more than subjective and transitory, it is
as yet slang. Such words should not be used in print till they have
become so familiar that there is not the slightest temptation to dress
them up in quotation marks. Though they are the most easily detected,
they are also the best slang; when the time comes, they take their
place in the language as words that will last, and not, like many of
the more highly descended words, die away uselessly after a brief
popularity.
Another set of words that may be said to come from below, since it
owes its existence to the vast number of people who are incapable of
appreciating fine shades of meaning, is exemplified by _nice_, _awful_,
_blooming_. Words of this class fortunately never make their way, in
their slang senses, into literature (except, of course, dialogue). The
abuse of _nice_ has gone on at any rate for over a century; the curious
reader may find an interesting page upon it in the fourteenth chapter
of _Northanger Abbey_ (1803). But even now we do not talk in books of
_a nice day_, only of _a nice distinction_. On the other hand, the
slang use makes us shy in different degrees of writing the words in
their legitimate sense: _a nice distinction_ we write almost without
qualms; _an awful storm_ we think twice about; and as to _a blooming
girl_, we hardly venture it nowadays. The most recent sufferer of this
sort is perhaps _chronic_. It has been adopted by the masses, as far
apart at least as in Yorkshire and in London, for a mere intensive, in
the sense of _remarkable_. The next step is for it to be taken up in
parody by people who know better; after which it may be expected to
succeed _awful_.
So much for the slang from below; the ordinary man can detect it. He
is not so infallible about what comes to him from above. We are by no
means sure that we shall be correct in our particular attribution of
the half-dozen words now to be mentioned; but it is safe to say that
they are all at present enjoying some vogue as slang, and that they
all come from regions that to most of us are overhead. _Phenomenal_,
soon, we hope, to perish unregretted, is (at least indirectly, through
the abuse of _phenomenon_) from Metaphysics; _immanence_, a word often
met in singular company, from Comparative Theology; _epochmaking_
perhaps from the Philosophic Historian; _true inwardness_ from Literary
Criticism; _cad_ (which is, it appears, Etonian for _cadet_) from the
Upper Classes; _psychological moment_ from Science; _thrasonical_
and _cryptic_ from Academic Circles; _philistine_ from the region of
culture. Among these the one that will be most generally allowed to
be slang--_cad_--is in fact the least so; it has by this time, like
_mob_, passed its probation and taken its place as an orthodox word,
so that all who do not find adequate expression for their feelings in
the orthodox have turned away to _bounder_ and other forms that still
admit the emphasis of quotation marks. As for the rest of them, they
are being subjected to that use, at once over-frequent and inaccurate,
which produces one kind of slang. But the average man, seeing from what
exalted quarters they come, is dazzled into admiration and hardly knows
them for what they are.
By the slang that comes from different sides or from the centre
we mean especially the many words taken originally from particular
professions, pursuits, or games, but extended beyond them. Among these
a man is naturally less critical of what comes from his own daily
concerns, that is, in his view, from the centre. _Frontispiece_, for
face, perhaps originated in the desire of prize-ring reporters to vary
the words in their descriptive flights. _Negotiate_ (a difficulty, &c.)
possibly comes from the hunting-field; people whose conversation runs
much upon a limited subject feel the need of new phrases for the too
familiar things. And both these words, as well as _individual_, which
must be treated more at length in the next section, are illustrations
of a tendency that we have called polysyllabic humour and discussed
in the Chapter _Airs and Graces_. We now add a short list of slang
phrases or words that can most of them be referred with more or less
of certainty to particular occupations. Whether they are recognized
as slang will certainly depend in part on whether the occupation is
familiar, though sometimes the familiarity will disguise, and sometimes
it will bring out, the slanginess.
_To hedge_, _the double event_ (turf); _frontal attack_ (war);
_play the game_, _stumped_ (cricket); _to run_--the show,
&c.--(engine-driving); _knock out_, _take it lying down_ (prize-ring);
_log-rolling_, _slating_, _birrelling_ (literature); _to tackle_--a
problem, &c.--(football); _to take a back seat_ (coaching?); _bedrock_,
_to exploit_, _how it pans out_ (mining); _whole-hogging_, _world
policy_ (politics); _floored_ (1. prize ring; 2. school); _the under
dog_ (dog-fighting); _up to date_ (advertising); _record_--time,
&c.--(athletics); _euchred_, _going one better_, _going Nap._ (cards);
_to corner_--a thing--(commerce)--a person--(ratting); _chic_ (society
journalism); _on your own_, _of sorts_, _climb down_, _globetrotter_,
_to laze_ (perhaps not assignable).
Good and sufficient occasions will arise--rarely--for using most
of these phrases and the rest of the slang vocabulary. To those,
however, who desire that what they write may endure it is suggested
that, as style is the great antiseptic, so slang is the great
corrupting matter; it is perishable itself, and infects what is round
it--the catchwords that delight one generation stink in the nostrils
of the next; _individual_, which almost made the fortune of many a
Victorian humorist, is one of the modern editor’s shibboleths for
detecting the unfit. And even those who regard only the present will
do well to remember that in literature as elsewhere there are as many
conservatives as progressives, as many who expect their writers to
say things a little better than they could do themselves as who are
flattered by the proof that one man is no better than another.
‘Skepsey did come back to London with rather a damaged
_frontispiece_’, Victor said.--MEREDITH.
Henson, however, once _negotiated_ a sprint down his wing, and put in
a fine dropping shot to Aubert, who saved.--_Guernsey Evening Press._
Passengers, the guild add, usually arrive at the last moment before
sailing, when the master must concentrate his mind upon _negotiating_
a safe passage.--_Times._
To deal with these extensive and purely local breeding grounds in the
manner suggested by Major Ross would be a very _tall order_.--_Times._
In about twenty minutes he returned, accompanied by a highly
intelligent-looking _individual_, dressed in blue and black, with
a particularly white cravat, and without a hat on his head; this
_individual_, whom I should have mistaken for a gentleman but for the
intelligence depicted in his face, he introduced to me as the master
of the inn.--BORROW.
A Sèvres vase sold yesterday at Christie’s _realized_ what is believed
to be the _record_ price of 4,000 guineas.--_Times._
You could not, if you had tried, have made so perfect a place for two
girls to lounge in, to _laze_ in, to read silly novels in, or to go to
sleep in on drowsy afternoons.--CROCKETT.
Mr. Balfour’s somewhat _thrasonical_ eulogies.--_Spectator._
A quarrelsome, somewhat _thrasonical_ fighting man.--_Spectator._
The _true inwardness_ of this statement is....--_Times._
We do not know what _inwardness_ there may be in the order of his
discourses, though each of them has some articulate link with that
which precedes.--_Times._
Such a departure from etiquette at the _psychological moment_ shows
tact and discretion.--_Times._
He asserts that about four years ago there was quite an Argentine
_boom_ in New Zealand.--_Times._
No treatment of slang, however short, should omit the reminder that
slang and idiom are hard to distinguish, and yet, in literature,
slang is bad, and idiom good. We said that slang was perishable; the
fact is that most of it perishes; but some survives and is given the
idiomatic franchise; ‘when it doth prosper, none dare call it’ slang.
The idiomatic writer differs chiefly from the slangy in using what was
slang and is now idiom; of what is still slang he chooses only that
part which his insight assures him has the sort of merit that will
preserve it. In a small part of their vocabulary the idiomatic and the
slangy will coincide, and be therefore confused by the undiscerning.
The only advice that can be given to novices uncertain of their own
discrimination is to keep carefully off the debatable ground. Full
idiom and full slang are as far apart as virtue and vice; and yet
They oft so mix, the difference is too nice
Where ends the virtue, or begins the vice.
Any one who can confidently assign each of the following phrases to its
own territory may feel that he is not in much danger:
Outrun the constable, the man in the street, kicking your heels,
between two stools, cutting a loss, riding for a fall, not seeing the
wood for the trees, minding your Ps and Qs, crossing the _t_s, begging
the question, special pleading, a bone to pick, half seas over, tooth
and nail, bluff, maffick, a tall order, it has come to stay.
PARTICULAR WORDS
Individual, mutual, unique, aggravating.
To use _individual_ wrongly in the twentieth century stamps a writer,
more definitely than almost any other single solecism, not as being
generally ignorant or foolish, but as being without the literary
sense. For the word has been pilloried time after time; every one who
is interested in style at all--which includes every one who aspires
to be readable--must at least be aware that there is some mystery
about the word, even if he has not penetrated it. He has, therefore,
two courses open to him: he may leave the word alone; or he may find
out what it means; if he insists on using it without finding out, he
will commit himself. The adjectival use of it presents no difficulty;
the adjective, as well as the adverb _individually_, is always used
rightly if at all; it is the noun that goes wrong. An _individual_
is not simply a person; it is a single, separate, or private person,
a person as opposed to a combination of persons; this qualification,
this opposition, must be effectively present to the mind, or the word
is not in place. In the nineteenth, especially the early nineteenth
century, this distinction was neglected; mainly under the impulse of
‘polysyllabic humour’, the word, which does mean _person_ in some sort
of way, was seized upon as a facetious substitute for it; not only
that; it spread even to good writers who had no facetious intention; it
became the kind of slang described in the last section, which is highly
popular until it suddenly turns disgusting. In reading many of these
writers we feel that we must make allowances for them on this point;
they only failed to be right when every one else was wrong. But we, if
we do it, sin against the light.
To leave no possible doubt about the distinction, we shall give many
examples, divided into (1) right uses, (2) wrong uses, (3) sentences in
which, though the author has used the word rightly, a perverse reader
might take it wrongly. It will be observed that in (1) to substitute
_man_ or _person_ would distinctly weaken the sense; in the sentence
from Macaulay it would be practically impossible. The words italicized
are those that prove the contrast with bodies, or organizations, to
have been present to the writer’s mind, though it may often happen that
he does not actually show it by specific mention of them. On the other
hand, in (2) _person_ or _man_ or _he_ might always be substituted
without harm to the sense, though sometimes a more exact word (not
_individual_) might be preferable. In (3) little difference would be
made by the substitution.
(1) Many of the _constituent bodies_ were under the absolute control
of individuals.--MACAULAY.
Regarding the general effect of Lord Kitchener’s proclamation,
everything so far as is known here points to the conclusion that the
document has failed to secure the surrender of any _body of men_.
Merely a few individuals have yielded.--_Times._
The wise Commons, considering that they are, if not a French _Third
Estate_, at least an aggregate of individuals pretending to some title
of that kind, determine....--CARLYLE.
(2) That greenish-coloured individual is an advocate of Arras; his
name is Maximilien Robespierre.--CARLYLE. (person)
Surely my fate is somehow strangely interwoven with that of this
mysterious individual.--SCOTT. (person)
And, as its weight is 15 lb., nobody save an individual in no
condition to distinguish a hawk from a handsaw could possibly mistake
it for a saluting charge.--_Times._ (person)
The Secretary of State for War was sending the same man down to
see what he could do in the Isle of Wight. The individual duly
arrived.--_Times._ (he)
My own shabby clothes and deplorable aspect, as compared with this
regal-looking individual.--CORELLI. (person)
In the present case, however, the individual who had secured the cab
had a companion.--BEACONSFIELD. (man)
I give my idea of the method in which Mr. Spencer and a Metaphysician
would discuss the necessity and validity of the Universal Postulate.
We must suppose this imaginary individual to have so far forgotten
himself as to make some positive statement--A. J. BALFOUR. (person)
But what made her marry that individual, who was at least as much like
an oil-barrel as a man?--C. BRONTË. (monstrosity)
He was a genteelly dressed individual; rather corpulent, with dark
features.--BORROW. (man)
During his absence two calls were made at the parsonage--one by a very
rough-looking individual who left a suspicious document in the hands
of the servant.--TROLLOPE. (man)
(3) Almost all the recent Anarchist crimes were perpetrated
by _isolated_ halfwitted individuals who aimed at universal
notoriety.--_Times._
Which of these two individuals, in plain white cravat, that have come
up to regenerate France, might one guess would become their king? For
a king or leader they, as all _bodies of men_, must have.--CARLYLE.
Some apology is due for so heaping up instances of the same thing; but
here, as with other common blunders to be treated of later, it has
seemed that an effect might be produced by mere iteration.
The word _mutual_ requires caution. As with _individual_, any one who
is not prepared to clear his ideas upon its meaning will do well to
avoid it; it is a very telltale word, readily convicting the unwary,
and on the other hand it may quite easily be done without. Every one
knows by now that _our mutual friend_ is a solecism. _Mutual_ implies
an action or relation between two or more persons or things, A doing
or standing to B as B does or stands to A. Let A and B be the persons
indicated by _our_, C the _friend_. No such reciprocal relation is here
implied between A and B (who for all we know may be enemies), but only
a separate, though similar relation between each of them and C. There
is no such thing as a mutual friend in the singular; but the phrase
_mutual friends_ may without nonsense be used to describe either A and
C, B and C, or, if A and B happen to be also friends, A and B and C.
_Our mutual friend_ is nonsense; _mutual friends_, though not nonsense,
is bad English, because it is tautological. It takes two to make a
friendship, as to make a quarrel; and therefore all friends are mutual
friends, and _friends_ alone means as much as _mutual friends_. _Mutual
wellwishers_ on the other hand is good English as well as good sense,
because it is possible for me to be a man’s wellwisher though he hates
me. Mutual love, understanding, insurance, benefits, dislike, mutual
benefactors, backbiters, abettors, may all be correct, though they are
also sometimes used incorrectly, like _our mutual friend_, where the
right word would be _common_.
Further, it is to be carefully observed that the word _mutual_ is an
equivalent in meaning, and sometimes a convenient one for grammatical
reasons, of the pronoun _each other_ with various prepositions. To use
it as well as _each other_ is even more clearly tautological than the
already mentioned _mutual friendship_.
If this be the case, much of the lost mutual understanding and unity
of feeling may be restored.--_Times._
Correct, if _mutual_ is confined to _understanding_: they no longer
understand _each other_.
Once their differences removed, both felt that in presence of certain
incalculable factors in Europe it would be of mutual advantage to draw
closer together.--_Times._
Slightly clumsy; but it means that they would get advantage _from each
other_ by drawing together, and may stand.
... conversing with his Andalusian lady-love in rosy whispers about
their mutual passion for Spanish chocolate all the while.--MEREDITH.
Surely you have heard Mrs. Toddles talking to Mrs. Doddles about their
mutual maids.--THACKERAY.
Indefensible.
There may be, moreover, while each has the key of the fellow breast, a
mutually sensitive nerve.--MEREDITH.
A nerve cannot respond to each other; nerves can; _a common nerve_
would have done; or _mutually sensitive nerves_.
It is now definitely announced that King Edward will meet President
Loubet this afternoon near Paris. Our Paris Correspondent says the
meeting will take place by mutual desire.--_Times._
Right or wrong according to what is meant by _desire_. (1) If it means
that King Edward and M. Loubet desired, that is, had a yearning for,
each other, it is correct; but the writer probably did not intend so
poetic a flight. (2) If it means that they merely desired a meeting,
it is wrong, exactly as _our mutual friend_ is wrong. The relation is
not one between A and B; it is only that A and B hold separately the
same relation to C, the meeting. It should be _common desire_. (3) If
_desire_ is here equivalent to _request_, and each is represented as
having requested the other to meet him, it is again correct; but only
politeness to the writer would induce any one to take this alternative.
The carpenter holds the hammer in one hand, the nail in the other, and
they do their work equally well. So it is with every craftsman; the
hands are mutually busy.--_Times._
Wrong. The hands are not _busy_ with or _upon each other_, but with
or upon the work. As _commonly_ would be ambiguous here, _equally_
or _alike_ should be used, or simply _both_. _Mutually serviceable_,
again, would have been right.
There were other means of communication between Claribel and her new
prophet. Books were mutually lent to each other.--BEACONSFIELD.
This surprising sentence means that Vanity Fair was lent to Paradise
Lost, and Paradise Lost to Vanity Fair. If we further assume for
politeness’ sake that _mutually_ is not mere tautology with _to each
other_, the only thing left for it to mean is _by each other_. The
doubt then remains whether (1) Paradise Lost was lent to Vanity Fair by
Paradise Lost, and Vanity Fair to Paradise Lost by Vanity Fair, or (2)
Paradise Lost was lent to Vanity Fair by Vanity Fair, and Vanity Fair
to Paradise Lost by Paradise Lost. This may be considered captious; but
we still wish the author had said either, They lent each other books,
or, Books were lent by them to each other.
A thing is _unique_, or not unique; there are no degrees of
uniqueness; nothing is ever somewhat or rather unique, though many
things are almost or in some respects unique. The word is a member
of a depreciating series. _Singular_ had once the strong meaning
that _unique_ has still in accurate but not in other writers. In
consequence of slovenly use, _singular_ no longer means singular, but
merely remarkable; it is worn out; before long _rather unique_ will be
familiar; _unique_, that is, will be worn out in turn, and we shall
have to resort to _unexampled_ and keep that clear of qualifications as
long as we can. Happily it is still admitted that sentences like the
three given below are solecisms; they contain a self-contradiction.
For the other regrettable use of _unique_, as when the advertisement
columns offer us what they call _unique opportunities_, it may
generally be assumed with safety that they are lying; but lying is not
in itself a literary offence, so that with these we have nothing to do.
Thrills which gave him _rather_ a _unique_ pleasure.--HUTTON.
A _very unique_ child, thought I.--C. BRONTË.
... is to be translated into Russian by M. Robert Böker, of St.
Petersburg. This is a _somewhat unique_ thing to happen to an English
text-book.--_Westminster Gazette._
To _aggravate_ is not to annoy or enrage (a person), but to make worse
(a condition or trouble). The active participle should very rarely, and
the rest of the active practically never, be used without an expressed
object, and that of the right kind. In the sentence, _An aggravating
circumstance was that the snow was dirty_, the meaning is not that the
dirt was annoying, but that it added to some other misery previously
expressed or implied. But, as the dirt happens to be annoying also,
this use is easily misunderstood, and is probably the origin of the
notorious vulgarism; since it almost inevitably lays a writer open
to suspicion, it is best avoided. Of the following quotations, the
first is quite correct, the other five as clearly wrong; in the fifth,
_aggrieved_ would be the right word.
A premature initiative would be useless and even dangerous,
being calculated rather to aggravate than to simplify the
situation.--_Times._
Perhaps the most trying and aggravating period of the whole six months
during which the siege has lasted was this period of enforced idleness
waiting for the day of entry.--_Times._
There is a cold formality about the average Englishman; a lack of
effusive disposition to ingratiate himself, and an almost aggravating
indifference to alien customs or conventions.--_Times._
Mrs. Craigie may possibly be regarding him with an irony too fine for
us to detect; but to the ordinary mind he appears to be conceived in
the spirit of romance, and a very stupid, tiresome, aggravating man he
is.--_Times._
‘Well, I’m sure I’m very much obliged to you, Misses Brown,’ said the
unfortunate youth, greatly aggravated.--DICKENS.
Nevertheless, it is an aggravating book, though we are bound to admit
that we have been greatly interested.--_Westminster Gazette._
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Romance languages are those whose grammatical structure, as
well as part at least of their vocabulary, is directly descended from
Latin--as Italian, French, Spanish. Under Romance words we include
all that English has borrowed from Latin either directly or through
the Romance languages. And words borrowed from Greek in general use,
ranging from _alms_ to _metempsychosis_, may for the purposes of this
chapter be considered as Romance. The vast number of purely scientific
Greek words, as _oxygen_, _meningitis_, are on a different footing,
since they are usually the only words for what they denote.
[2] As in the second quotation from _The Times_ on p. 4.
[3] Even in the legitimate sense (see p. 16), originally a happy
metaphor for mysterious leaking out, but now vulgarized and ‘dead’.
[4] Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed
into a sentence with _snow-white_, _green_, and _shrimp-pink_,
it contributes noticeably to that effect of brief and startling
exhaustiveness which is one variety of what we have stigmatized as
efficiency.
[5] It has. ‘It would be difficult to say just how many weddings of
famous people have been celebrated at St. George’s Church, Hanover
Square.’--_Westminster Gazette._
[6] Readers of history are of course likely to be familiar with it; it
occurs, for instance, scores of times in Carlyle’s _Friedrich_. In such
work it is legitimate, being sure, between context and repetition, to
be comprehensible; but this does not apply to newspaper writing.
[7] The _Oxford Dictionary_ has fourteen varieties.
[8] _Alit_ is due, no doubt, to mere inadvertence or ignorance: the
form _litten_ (‘red-litten windows’, &c.), for which the _Oxford
Dictionary_ quotes Poe, Lytton, W. Morris, and Crockett, but no old
writer, is sham archaism.
[9] The use deprecated has perhaps crept in from such phrases as _the
sun was partially eclipsed_, an adaptation of _a partial eclipse_; and
to such phrases it should be restricted. ‘The case was partially heard
on Oct. 17’ is ambiguous; and the second example in the text is almost
so, nearly enough to show that the limitation is desirable. The rule
should be never to write _partially_ without first considering the
claims of _partly_.
CHAPTER II
SYNTAX
CASE
There is not much opportunity in English for going wrong here, because
we have shed most of our cases. The personal pronouns, and _who_ and
its compounds, are the only words that visibly retain three--called
subjective, objective, possessive. In nouns the first two are
indistinguishable, and are called the common case. One result of this
simplicity is that, the sense of case being almost lost, the few
mistakes that can be made are made often--some of them so often that
they are now almost right by prescription.
1. In apposition.
A pronoun appended to a noun, and in the same relation to the rest of
the sentence, should be in the same case. Disregard of this is a bad
blunder.
But to behold her mother--_she_ to whom she owed her being!--S.
FERRIER.
2. The complement with _am_, _are_, _is_, &c., should be subjective.
I am she, she _me_, till death and beyond it.--MEREDITH.
_Whom_ would you rather be?
To how many maimed and mourning millions is the first and sole angel
visitant, _him_ Easterns call Azrael.--C. BRONTË.
That’s _him_.
In the last but one, _him_ would no doubt have been defended by the
writer, since the full form would be _he whom_, as an attraction to
the vanished _whom_. But such attraction is not right; if _he_ alone
is felt to be uncomfortable, _whom_ should not be omitted; or, in this
exalted context, it might be _he that_.
On _that’s him_, see 4, below.
3. When a verb or preposition governs two pronouns united by _and_,
&c., the second is apt to go wrong--a bad blunder. _Between you and I_
is often heard in talk; and, in literature:
And now, my dear, let you and _I_ say a few words about this
unfortunate affair.--TROLLOPE.
It is kept locked up in a marble casket, quite out of reach of you or
_I_.--S. FERRIER.
She found everyone’s attention directed to Mary, and _she_ herself
entirely overlooked.--S. FERRIER.
4. The interrogative _who_ is often used for _whom_, as, _Who_ did you
see? A distinction should here be made between conversation, written or
spoken, and formal writing. Many educated people feel that in saying
_It is I, Whom do you mean?_ instead of _It’s me, Who do you mean?_
they will be talking like a book, and they justifiably prefer geniality
to grammar. But in print, unless it is dialogue, the correct forms are
advisable.
5. Even with words that have no visible distinction between subjective
and objective case, it is possible to go wrong; for the case can always
be inferred, though not seen. Consequently a word should never be so
placed that it must be taken twice, once as subject and once as object.
This is so common a blunder that it will be well to give a good number
of examples. It occurs especially with the relative, from its early
position in the sentence; but, as the first two examples show, it may
result from the exceptional placing of other words also. The mere
repetition of the relative, or insertion of _it_ or other pronoun,
generally mends the sentence; in the first example, change _should only
be_ to _only to be_.
_The occupation of the mouths of the Yalu_, however, his Majesty
considered undesirable, and should only be carried out in the last
resort.--_Times._
_This_ the strong sense of Lady Maclaughlan had long perceived, and
was the principal reason of her selecting so weak a woman as her
companion.--S. FERRIER.
Qualities _which_ it would cost me a great deal to acquire, and would
lead to nothing.--MORLEY.
A recorded saying of our Lord _which_ some higher critics of the New
Testament regard as of doubtful authenticity, and is certainly of
doubtful interpretation.
A weakness _which_ some would miscall gratitude, and is oftentimes the
corrupter of a heart not ignoble.--RICHARDSON.
Analogous to these are the next three examples, which will require
separate comment:
Knowledge _to_ the certainty of which no authority could add, or take
away, one jot or tittle.--HUXLEY.
_To_ is applicable to _add_, not to _take away_. The full form is given
by substituting for _or_ ‘and from the certainty of which no authority
could’. This is clearly too cumbrous. Inserting _or from_ after _to_
is the simplest correction; but the result is rather formal. Better,
perhaps, ‘the certainty of which could not be increased or diminished
one jot by any authority’.
From his conversation I should have pronounced him to be fitted to
excel _in_ whatever walk of ambition he had chosen to exert his
abilities.
A second _in_ is required. This common slovenliness results from the
modern superstition against putting a preposition at the end. The
particular sentence may, however, be mended otherwise than by inserting
_in_, if _excel_ is made absolute by a comma placed after it. Even
then, the _in_ would perhaps be better at the end of the clause than at
the beginning.
Lastly may be mentioned a principle _upon which_ Clausewitz insisted
with all his strength, and could never sufficiently impress upon his
Royal scholar.--_Times._
The italicized _upon_ (we have nothing to do with the other _upon_) is
right with _insist_, but wrong, though it must necessarily be supplied
again, with _impress_. It is the result of the same superstition. Mend
either by writing _upon_ after _insisted_ instead of before _which_, or
by inserting _which he_ after _and_.
6. After _as_ and _than_.
These are properly conjunctions and ‘take the same case after them as
before’. But those words must be rightly understood. (a), _I love you
more than him_, means something different from (b), _I love you more
than he_. It must be borne in mind that the ‘case before’ is that of
the word that is compared with the ‘case after’, and not necessarily
that of the word actually next before in position. In (a) _you_ is
compared with _him_: in (b) _I_ (not _you_) is compared with _he_. The
correct usage is therefore important, and the tendency illustrated in
the following examples to make _than_ and _as_ prepositions should be
resisted--though no ambiguity can actually result here.
When such as _her_ die.--SWIFT.
But there, I think, Lindore would be more eloquent than _me_.--S.
FERRIER.
It must further be noticed that both _as_ and _than_ are conjunctions
of the sort that can either, like _and_, &c., merely join coordinates,
or, like _when_, &c., attach a subordinate clause to what it depends
on. This double power sometimes affects case.
It is to him and such men as _he_ that we owe the change.--HUXLEY.
This example is defensible, _as_ being here a subordinating
conjunction, and _as he_ being equivalent to _as he is_. But it is
distinctly felt to need defence, which _as him_ would not; _as_ would
be a coordinating conjunction, and simply join the pronoun _him_ to the
noun _men_. So, with _than_:
Such as have bound me, as well as others much better than _me_, by an
inviolable attachment to him from that time forward.--BURKE.
On the other hand, we could not say indifferently, _I am as good as
he_, and _I am as good as him_; the latter would imply that _as_ was a
preposition, which it is not. And it is not always possible to choose
between the coordinating and the subordinating use. In the next example
only the coordinating will do, no verb being capable of standing after
_he_; but the author has not observed this.
I beheld a man in the dress of a postillion, whom I instantly
recognized as _he_ to whom I had rendered assistance.--BORROW.
A difficult question, however, arises with relatives after _than_.
In the next two examples _whom_ is as manifestly wrong as _who_ is
manifestly intolerable:
Dr. Dillon, than _whom_ no Englishman has a profounder acquaintance
with....--_Times._
It was a pleasure to hear Canon Liddon, than _whom_, in his day, there
was no finer preacher.
The only correct solution is to recast the sentences. For instance,
_... whose acquaintance with ... is unrivalled among Englishmen_; and
_... unsurpassed in his day as a preacher_. But perhaps the convenience
of _than whom_ is so great that to rule it out amounts to saying that
man is made for grammar and not grammar for man.
7. Compound possessives.
This is strictly the proper place for drawing attention to a question
that has some importance because it bears on the very common
construction discussed at some length in the gerund section. This is
the question whether, and to what extent, compound possessives may be
recognized. Some people say _some one else’s_, others say _some one’s
else_. Our own opinion is that the latter is uncalled for and pedantic.
Of the three alternatives, _Smith the baker’s wife_, _Smith’s wife
the baker_, _the wife of Smith the baker_, the last is unmitigated
Ollendorff, the second thrusts its ambiguity upon us and provokes an
involuntary smile, and the first alone is felt to be natural. It must
be confessed, however, that it is generally avoided in print, while the
form that we have ventured to call pedantic is not uncommon. In the
first of the examples that follow, we should be inclined to change to
_Nanny the maid-of-all-work’s_, and in the second to _the day of Frea,
goddess of_, &c.
Another mind that was being wrought up to a climax was Nanny’s, the
maid-of-all-work, who had a warm heart.--ELIOT.
Friday is Frea’s-day, the goddess of peace and joy and
fruitfulness.--J. R. GREEN.
NUMBER
Very little comment will be needed; we have only to convince readers
that mistakes are common, and caution therefore necessary.
1. The copula should always agree with the subject, not with the
complement. These are wrong:
The _pages_ which describe how the 34th Osaka Regiment wiped out the
tradition that had survived since the Saigo rebellion _is_ a typical
_piece_ of description.--_Times._
A _boy_ dressed up as a girl _and a girl_ dressed up as a girl _is_,
to the eye at least, the same _thing_.--_Times._
People do not believe now as they did, but the moral _inconsistencies_
of our contemporaries _is_ no _proof_ thereof.--_Daily Telegraph._
It must be remembered that in questions the subject often comes after
the verb and the complement before it; but the same rule must be kept.
E. g., if the last example were put as a question instead of as a
negative statement, ‘What proof _is_ the inconsistencies?’ would be
wrong, and ‘What proof _are_ &c.?’ right.
* * * * *
Some sentences in which the subject contains _only_, a superlative,
&c., have the peculiarity that subject and complement may almost be
considered to have changed places; and this defence would probably be
put in for the next three examples; but, whether actually wrong or not,
they are unpleasant. The noun that stands before the verb should be
regarded as the subject, and the verb be adapted to it.
The only _thing_ Siamese about the Consul, except the hatchment and
the flag, _were_ his _servants_.--SLADEN.
The only _difficulty_ in Finnish _are_ the _changes_ undergone by the
stem.--SWEET.
The most pompous _monument_ of Egyptian greatness, and _one_ of the
most bulky works of manual industry, _are_ the pyramids.--JOHNSON.
The next example is a curious problem; the subject to _were_ is in
sense plural, but in grammar singular (_finding_, verbal noun):
_Finding_ Miss Vernon in a place so solitary, engaged in a journey
so dangerous, and under the protection of one gentleman only, _were
circumstances_ to excite every feeling of jealousy.--SCOTT.
2. Mistakes in the number of verbs are extremely common when a singular
noun intervenes between a plural subject (or a plural noun between
a singular subject) and its verb. It is worth while to illustrate
the point abundantly; for it appears that real doubt can exist on
the subject:--‘“No one but schoolmasters and schoolboys knows” is
exceedingly poor English, _if it is not absolutely bad grammar_’ (from
a review of this book, 1st ed.).
And do we wonder, when the _foundation_ of _politics_ _are_ in the
letter only, that many evils should arise?--JOWETT.
There is _much_ in these ceremonial _accretions and teachings_ of
the Church which _tend_ to confuse and distract, and which hinder
us....--_Daily Telegraph._
This sentence, strictly taken as it stands, would mean something that
the writer by no means intends it to, viz., ‘Though the ceremonies are
confusing, there is a great deal in them’.
An immense _amount_ of _confusion and indifference_ _prevail_ in these
days.--_Daily Telegraph._
They produced various _medicaments_, the lethal _power_ of _which_
_were_ extolled at large.--_Times._
The _partition_ which the two ministers made of the _powers_ of
government _were_ singularly happy.--MACAULAY.
_One_ at least of the _qualities_ which fit it for training ordinary
men _unfit_ it for training an extraordinary man.--BAGEHOT.
I failed to pass in the small _amount_ of _classics_ which _are_ still
held to be necessary.--_Times._
The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those
dangerous _influences_ _whose appearance_ _were_ the chief cause of
our action.--_Times._
Sundry other reputable _persons_, I know not whom, _whose_ joint
_virtue_ still _keep_ the law in good odour.--EMERSON.
The practical _results_ of the recognition of this _truth_ _is_ as
follows.--W. H. MALLOCK.
The Ordination _services_ of the English _Church_ _states_ this to be
a truth.--_Daily Telegraph._
All special _rights_ of _voting_ in the election of members _was_
abolished.--J. R. GREEN.
The separate _powers_ of this great _officer_ of State, who had
originally acted only as President of the Council when discharging its
judicial functions, _seems_ to have been thoroughly established under
Edward I.--J. R. GREEN.
3. _They_, _them_, _their_, _theirs_, are often used in referring back
to singular pronominals (as _each_, _one_, _anybody_, _everybody_), or
to singular nouns or phrases (as _a parent_, _neither Jack nor Jill_),
of which the doubtful or double gender causes awkwardness. It is a
real deficiency in English that we have no pronoun, like the French
_soi_, _son_, to stand for _him-or-her_, _his-or-her_ (for _he-or-she_
French is no better off than English). Our view, though we admit it to
be disputable, is clear--that _they_, _their_, &c., should never be
resorted to, as in the examples presently to be given they are. With a
view to avoiding them, it should be observed that (_a_) the possessive
of _one_ (indefinite pronoun) is _one’s_, and that of _one_ (numeral
pronoun) is either _his_, or _her_, or _its_ (One does not forget
_one’s_ own name: I saw one of them drop _his_ cigar, _her_ muff, or
_its_ leaves); (_b_) _he_, _his_, _him_, may generally be allowed to
stand for the common gender; the particular aversion shown to them by
Miss Ferrier in the examples may be referred to her sex; and, ungallant
as it may seem, we shall probably persist in refusing women their due
here as stubbornly as Englishmen continue to offend the Scots by saying
_England_ instead of _Britain_. (_c_) Sentences may however easily
be constructed (Neither John nor Mary knew _his_ own mind) in which
_his_ is undeniably awkward. The solution is then what we so often
recommend, to do a little exercise in paraphrase (_John and Mary were
alike irresolute_, for instance). (_d_) Where legal precision is really
necessary, _he or she_ may be written in full. Corrections according to
these rules will be appended in brackets to the examples.
_Anybody_ else who _have_ only _themselves_ in view.--RICHARDSON. (has
... himself)
Ce n’est que le premier pas qui coûte, in novel-writing as in carrying
_one’s_ head in _their_ hand.--S. FERRIER. (one’s ... one’s)
The feelings of the _parent_ upon committing the cherished object of
_their_ cares and affections to the stormy sea of life.--S. FERRIER.
(his)
But he never allowed _one_ to feel _their_ own deficiencies, for he
never appeared to be aware of them himself.--S. FERRIER. (one’s)
A difference of opinion which leaves _each_ free to act according to
_their_ own feelings.--S. FERRIER. (his)
Suppose _each_ of us _try our hands_ at it.--S. FERRIER. (tries his
hand; _or, if all of us are women_, tries her hand)
_Everybody_ is discontented with _their_ lot in life.--BEACONSFIELD.
(his)
4. Other mistakes involving number made with such pronominals, or with
nouns collective, personified, or abstract.
No man can read Scott without being more of a public man, whereas the
ordinary novel tends to make its _readers_ rather less of _one_ than
before.--HUTTON.
And so _each_ of his portraits _are_ not only a ‘piece of history’,
but....--STEVENSON.
Le Roman d’un Spahi, Azidayé and Rarahu _each_ contains the history of
a love affair.--H. JAMES.
He manages to interest us in the men, who _each_ in turn wishes to
engineer Richard Baldock’s future.--_Westminster Gazette._
When _each_ is appended in apposition to a plural subject, it should
stand after the verb, or auxiliary, which should be plural; read here,
_contain each_, _wish each in turn_ (or, _each of whom wishes in turn_).
As the leading maritime _nation_ in the world and dependent wholly
on the supremacy of our fleet to maintain this position, _everyone_
is virtually bound to accord some measure of aid to an association
whose time and talents are devoted to ensuring this important
object.--_Times._
Every one is indeed a host in himself, if he is the leading maritime
nation.
It is not in _Japan’s_ interests to allow negotiations to drag on once
_their_ armies are ready to deliver the final blow.--_Times._
The personification of Japan must be kept up by _her_.
_Many_ of my notes, I am greatly afraid, will be thought _a
superfluity_.--E. V. LUCAS (quoted in _Times_ review).
My notes may be a superfluity; many of my notes may be superfluous, or
superfluities; or many a note of mine may be a superfluity; but it will
hardly pass as it is.
5. Though nouns of multitude may be freely used with either a singular
or a plural verb, or be referred to by pronouns of singular or plural
meaning, they should not have both (except for special reasons and upon
deliberation) in the same sentence; and words that will rank in one
context as nouns of multitude may be very awkward if so used in another.
_The public_ _is_ naturally much impressed by this evidence, and in
considering it _do_ not make the necessary allowances.--_Times._
The _Times_ Brussels correspondent ... tells us that the _committee_
_adds_ these words to _their_ report.--_Westminster Gazette._
The Grand Opera Syndicate _has_ also made an important addition to
_their_ German tenors.--_Westminster Gazette._
The only political _party_ _who_ could take office was _that_ which
... had consistently opposed the American war.--BAGEHOT.
As _the race_ of man, after centuries of civilization, still _keeps_
some traits of _their_ barbarian fathers.--STEVENSON.
The battleship Kniaz Potemkin, of which the _crew_ _is_ said to have
mutinied and murdered _their_ officers.--_Times._
6. _Neither_, _either_, as pronouns, should always take a singular
verb--a much neglected rule. So also _every_.
The conception is faulty for two reasons, neither of which _are_
noticed by Plato.--JOWETT.
... neither of which _are_ very amiable motives for religious
gratitude.--THACKERAY.
He asked the gardener whether either of the ladies _were_ at
home.--TROLLOPE.
_Were_, however, may be meant for the subjunctive, when it would be a
fault of style, not of grammar.
I think almost _every one_ of the Judges of the High Court _are_
represented here.--LORD HALSBURY.
_Every_ Warwick institution, from the corporation to the
schools and the almshouses, _have_ joined hands in patriotic
fellow-working.--_Speaker._
7. For rhetorical reasons, a verb often precedes its subject; but
enthusiasm, even if appropriate, should not be allowed to override the
concords.
And of this emotion _was_ born all the _gods_ of antiquity.--_Daily
Telegraph._
But unfortunately there _seems_ to be spread abroad certain
_misconceptions_.--_Times._
But with these suggestions _are_ joined some very good _exposition_ of
principles which should underlie education generally.--_Spectator._
Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has received a resolution, to which _is_
appended the _names_ of eight Liberal members and candidates for East
London....--_Times._
COMPARATIVES AND SUPERLATIVES
The chief point that requires mention is ill treatment of _the more_.
In this phrase _the_ is not the article, but an adverb, either relative
or demonstrative. In _the more the merrier_ it is first relative and
then demonstrative: by-how-much we are more, by-so-much we shall be
merrier. When the relative _the_ is used, it should always be answered
regularly by, or itself answer, the demonstrative _the_. Attempts to
vary the formula are generally unhappy; for instance,
He was leaving his English business in the hands of Bilton, who seemed
to him, the more he knew him, extraordinarily efficient.--E. F. BENSON.
This should run, perhaps: _whose efficiency impressed him the more, the
more he knew him_--though it must be confessed that the double form
is nearly always uncomfortable if it has not the elbowroom of a whole
sentence to itself. That, however, is rather a question of style than
of syntax; and other examples will accordingly be found in the section
of the Chapter _Airs and Graces_ concerned with originality.
The farther we advance into it, we see confusion more and more unfold
itself into order.--CARLYLE.
Most readers will feel that this is an uncomfortable compromise between
_The farther we advance the more do we see_ and _As we advance we see
confusion more and more unfold itself_. Similarly,
She had reflection enough to foresee, that the longer she countenanced
his passion, her own heart would be more and more irretrievably
engaged.--SMOLLETT.
But it is when the demonstrative is used alone with no corresponding
relative clause--a use in itself quite legitimate--that real blunders
occur. It seems sometimes to be thought that _the more_ is merely a
more imposing form of _more_, and is therefore better suited for a
dignified or ambitious style; but it has in fact a perfectly definite
meaning, or rather two; and there need never be any doubt whether
_more_ or _the more_ is right. One of the meanings is a slight
extension of the other. (1) The correlative meaning _by so much_ may
be kept, though the relative clause, instead of formally corresponding
and containing _the_ (meaning _by how much_) and a comparative, takes
some possibly quite different shape. But it must still be clear from
the context what the relative clause might be. Thus, ‘We shall be a
huge crowd’.--‘Well, we shall be the merrier’. Or, ‘If he raises his
demands, I grant them the more willingly’, i. e., The more he asks,
the more willingly I give. This instance leads to the other possible
meaning, which is wider. (2) The original meaning of the demonstrative
_the_ is simply _by that_; this in the complete double form, and often
elsewhere, has the interpretation, limited to quantity, of _by so
much_, or _in that proportion_; but it may also mean _on that account_,
when the relative clause is not present. Again, however, the context
must answer plainly in some form the question _On what account?_ Thus,
He has done me many good turns; but I do not like him any the better;
i. e., any better on that account; i. e., on account of the good turns.
The function of _the_, then, is to tell us that there is, just before
or after, an answer to one of the questions, _More by what amount?_
_More on what account?_ If there is no such answer, we may be sure
that the comparative has no right to its _the_. We start with a
sentence that is entitled to its _the_, but otherwise unidiomatic.
We are not a whit _the less_ depressed in spirits at the sight of all
this unrelieved misery on the stage _by the reminder_ that Euripides
was moved to depict it by certain occurrences in his own contemporary
Athens.--_Times._
_The less_ is _less on that account_, viz., that we are reminded. But
the preposition required when the cause is given in this construction
by a noun is _for_, not _by_. Read _for the reminder_. The type is
shown in _None the better for seeing you_. Our sentence is in fact a
mixture between _Our depression is not lessened_ by _the reminder_, and
_We are not the less depressed for the reminder_; and the confusion is
the worse that _depressed by_ happens to be a common phrase.
The suggestion, as regarded Mr. Sowerby, was certainly true, and was
not the less so as regarded some of Mr. Sowerby’s friends.--TROLLOPE.
_The_ tells us that we can by looking about us find an answer either to
_Not less true by what amount?_ or to _Not less true on what account?_
There is no answer to the first except _Not less true about the friends
in proportion as it was truer about Mr. Sowerby_; and none to the
second except _Not less true about the friends because it was true
about Mr. Sowerby_. Both are meaningless, and _the_ the is superfluous
and wrong.
Yet as his criticism is more valuable than that of other men, so it is
the more rarely met with.--_Spectator._
This is such an odd tangle of the two formulae _as ... so_, _the more
... the more_, that the reader is tempted to cut the knot and imagine
what is hardly possible, that _the_ is meant for the ordinary article,
agreeing with _kind of criticism_ understood between _the_ and _more_.
Otherwise it must be cured either by omitting _the_, or by writing
_The more valuable his criticism, the more rarely is it met with_. If
the latter is done, _than that of other men_ will have to go. Which
suggests the further observation that _the_ with a comparative is
almost always wrong when a _than_-clause is appended. This is because
in the full double clause there is necessarily not a fixed standard of
comparison, but a sliding scale. The following example, not complicated
by any _the_, will make the point clear:
My eyes are more and more averse to light than ever.--S. FERRIER.
You can be more averse than ever, or more and more averse, but not
more and more averse than ever. _Ever_ can only mean the single point
of time in the past, whichever it was, at which you were most averse.
But to be more and more averse is to be more averse at each stage than
at each previous stage. Just such a sliding scale is essential with
_the more ... the more_. And perhaps it becomes so closely associated
with the phrase that the expression of a fixed standard of comparison,
such as is inevitably set up by a _than_-clause, is felt to be
impossible even when the demonstrative _the_ stands alone. In the next
two examples, answers to the question _More on what account?_ can be
found, though they are so far disguised that the sentences would be
uncomfortable, even if what makes them impossible were absent. That is
the addition of the _than_-clause in each.
But neither is that way open; nor is it any the more open in the case
of Canada than Australia.--F. GREENWOOD.
The _the_ might pass if _than Australia_ were omitted, and there
would be no objection to it if we read further (for _in the case_)
_if we take the case_, and better still, placed that clause first in
the sentence: Nor, if we take the case of Canada, is the way any the
more open. _The_ then means _on that account_, viz., because we have
substituted Canada.
I would humbly protest against setting up any standard of Christianity
by the regularity of people’s attendance at church or chapel. I am
certain personally that I have a far greater realization of the
goodness of God to all creation; I am certain that I can _the more_
acknowledge His unbounded love for all He has made, and our entire
dependence on Him, _than I could_ twenty years ago, when I attended
church ten times where I now go once.--_Daily Telegraph._
In this, the answer to _More on what account?_ is possibly implied in
the last clause; it would perhaps be, if clearly put, Because I go to
church seldomer. The right form would be, _I can the more acknowledge
... for going_ (or _that I go_) _to church only once where twenty years
ago I went ten times_. Unless the _than_-clause is got rid of, we ought
to have _more_ without _the_.
This question of _the_ is important for lucidity, is rather difficult,
and has therefore had to be treated at length. The other points that
call for mention are quite simple; they are illogicalities licensed by
custom, but perhaps better avoided. Avoidance, however, that proclaims
itself is not desirable; to set readers asking ‘Who are you, pray,
that the things everybody says are not good enough for you?’ is bad
policy; ‘in vitium ducit culpae fuga si caret arte.’ But if a way
round presents itself that does not at once suggest an assumption of
superiority, so much the better.
1. _More than I can help._
Without thinking of the corresponding phrase in his native language
more than he can help.--H. SWEET.
We don’t haul guns through traffic more than we can help.--KIPLING.
These really mean, of course, more than he (we) can_not_ help. To say
that, however, is by this time impossible. More than he need, if (when)
he can help it, too much, unnecessarily, and other substitutes, will
sometimes do.
2. _Most of any_ (singular).
A political despotism, the most unbounded, both in power and
principle, of any tyranny that ever existed so long.--GALT.
She has the most comfortable repository of stupid friends to have
recourse to of anybody I ever knew.--S. FERRIER.
And they had the readiest ear for a bold, honourable sentiment, of any
class of men the world ever produced.--STEVENSON.
Latin at any rate should be an essential ingredient in culture as the
best instrument of any language for clear and accurate expression of
thought.--_Times._
The first chapter, which from the lessons it enforces is perhaps the
most valuable of any in the present volume....--SIR G. T. GOLDIE.
Disraeli said that he had ‘the largest parliamentary knowledge of any
man he had met’.--BRYCE.
Though this is extremely common, as the examples are enough to show,
there is seldom any objection to saying either _most of all_ or _more
than any_.
3. _Most_ with words that do not admit of degrees.
_Unique_ has been separately dealt with in the chapter on _Vocabulary_.
_Ideal_ is another word of the same sort; _an ideal solution_ is one
that could not possibly be improved upon, and _most_ is nonsense with
it; _an ideal and most obvious_ should be read in the example:
That the transformation of the Regular Army into the general service
Army and of the Militia into the home service Army is a most ideal and
obvious solution admits, I think, of no contradiction.--_Times._
RELATIVES
=a. Defining and non-defining relative clauses.=
For the purposes of b. and c. below, all relative clauses are divided
into defining and non-defining. The exact sense in which we use these
terms is illustrated by the following groups, of which (i) contains
defining clauses, (ii) non-defining.
(i) The man who called yesterday left no address.
Mr. Lovelace has seen divers apartments at Windsor: but not one, he
says, that he thought fit for me.--RICHARDSON.
He secured ... her sincere regard, by the feelings which he
manifested.--THACKERAY.
The Jones who dines with us to-night is not the Jones who was at
school with you.
The best novel that Trollope ever wrote was....
Any man that knows three words of Greek could settle that point.
(ii) At the first meeting, which was held yesterday, the chair....
Deputies must be elected by the Zemstvos, which must be extended and
popularized, but not on the basis of....--_Times._
The Emperor William, who was present ..., listened to a loyal
address.--_Times._
The statue of the Emperor Frederick, which is the work of the sculptor
Professor Uphnes, represents the Monarch on horseback.--_Times._
Jones, who should know something of the matter, thinks differently.
The function of a defining relative clause is to limit the application
of the antecedent; where that is already precise, a defining clause
is not wanted. The limitation can be effected in more than one way,
according to the nature of the antecedent. As a rule, the antecedent
gives us a class to select from, the defining clause enables us to make
the selection. Thus in our first example the antecedent leaves us to
select from the general class of ‘men’, the defining clause fixes the
particular man (presumably the only man, or the only man that would
occur in the connexion) ‘who called yesterday’. Sometimes, however, the
functions of the two are reversed. When we have an antecedent with a
superlative, or other word of exclusive or comprehensive meaning, such
as ‘all’, ‘only’, ‘any’, we know already how to make our selection,
and only wait for the relative clause to tell us from what class to
make it. We know that we are to choose ‘the best novel’: the relative
clause limits us to the works of Trollope. We are to choose ‘any man’
we like, provided (says our relative clause) that he ‘knows three
words of Greek’. In either case, the work of definition is done by the
exclusion (implied in the relative clause) of persons or things that
the antecedent by itself might be taken to include.
The point to notice is that, whichever way the defining clause does its
work, it is essential to and inseparable from its antecedent. If for
any reason we wish to get rid of it, we can only do so by embodying its
contents in the antecedent: ‘The man in Paris with whom I correspond’
must become ‘My Paris correspondent’. To remove the clause altogether
is to leave the antecedent with either no meaning or a wrong one. Even
in such extreme cases as ‘the wisest man that ever lived’, ‘the meanest
flower that blows’, where the defining clause may seem otiose and
therefore detachable, we might claim that future wise men, and past and
future flowers, are excluded; but we shall better realize the writer’s
intention if we admit that these clauses are only a pretence of
limitation designed to exclude the reality; it is as if the writers,
invited to set limits to their statements, had referred us respectively
to Time and Space.
This fact, that the removal of a defining clause destroys the meaning
of the antecedent, supplies an infallible test for distinguishing
between the defining and the non-defining clause: the latter can
always, the former never, be detached without disturbing the truth of
the main predication. A non-defining clause gives independent comment,
description, explanation, anything but limitation of the antecedent;
it can always be rewritten either as a parenthesis or as a separate
sentence, and this is true, however essential the clause may be to the
point of the main statement. ‘Jones’, in our last example above, is
quoted chiefly as one ‘who should know something of the matter’; but
this need not prevent us from writing: ‘Jones thinks differently; and
he should know something of the matter’.
To find, then, whether a clause defines or does not define, remove it,
and see whether the statement of which it formed a part is unaltered:
if not, the clause defines. This test can be applied without difficulty
to all the examples given above. It is true that we sometimes get
ambiguous cases: after removing the relative clause, we cannot always
say whether the sense has been altered or not. That means, however,
not that our test has failed, but that the clause is actually capable
of performing either function, and that the main sentence can bear
two distinct meanings, between which even context may not enable us
to decide. The point is illustrated, in different degrees, by the
following examples:
Mr. H. Lewis then brought forward an amendment, which had been put
down by Mr. Trevelyan and which provided for an extension of the
process of income-tax graduation.--_Times._
This was held to portend developments that somehow or other have not
followed.--_Times._
The former of these is quite ambiguous. The bringing forward of an
amendment (no matter what or whose) may be all that the writer meant
to tell us of in the first instance; the relative clauses are then
non-defining clauses of description. On the other hand, both clauses
may quite well be meant to define; and it is even possible that the
second is meant to define, and the first not, though the coordination
is then of a kind that we shall show under c. to be improper.
Similarly, in the second sentence, ‘to portend developments’ may
possibly be complete in itself; the whole might then be paraphrased
thus: ‘It was thought that the matter would not stop there: but it
has’. More probably the clause is meant to define: ‘It was held to
portend what have since proved to be unrealized developments’. This
view is confirmed, as we shall see, both by the use of ‘that’ (not
‘which’) and by the absence of a comma before it.
Punctuation is a test that would not always be applicable even if all
writers could be assumed to punctuate correctly; but it is often a
guide to the writer’s intention. For (1) a non-defining clause should
always be separated from the antecedent by a stop; (2) a defining
clause should never be so separated unless it is either preceded by a
parenthesis indicated by stops, or coordinated with a former defining
clause or with adjectives belonging to the antecedent; as in the
following examples:
The only circumstance, in fact, that could justify such a course....
It is he only who does this, who follows them into all their force and
matchless grace, that does or can feel their full value.--HAZLITT.
Perfect types, that satisfy all these requirements, are not to be
looked for.
It will occur to the reader that our last two examples are strictly
speaking exceptions to the rule of defining clauses, since they tell us
only what is already implied, and could therefore be removed without
impairing the sense. That is true to some extent of many parallel
defining clauses: they are admissible, however, if, without actually
giving any limitation themselves, they make more clear a limitation
already given or implied; if, in fact, they are offered as alternative
versions or as reminders. Our next example is of a defining clause of
the same kind:
This estimate which he gives, is the great groundwork of his plan for
the national redemption.--BURKE.
The limitation given by ‘this’ is repeated in another form by the
relative clause. ‘This estimate, the one he gives, is....’
The reader should bear in mind that the distinction between the two
kinds of relative is based entirely on the closeness of their relation
to the antecedent. The information given by a defining clause must be
taken at once, with the antecedent, or both are useless: that given by
a non-defining clause will keep indefinitely, the clause being complete
in sense without the antecedent, and the antecedent without the clause.
This is the only safe test. To ask, for instance, whether the clause
conveys comment, explanation, or the like, is not a sufficient test
unless the question is rightly understood; for, although we have said
that a non-defining clause conveys comment and the like, as opposed
to definition of the antecedent, it does not follow that a defining
clause may not (while defining its own antecedent) _contribute_ towards
comment; on the contrary, it is often open to a writer to throw his
comment into such a form as will include a defining clause. It may even
appear from a comparison of the two sentences below that this is the
origin of the non-defining clause, (2) being an abbreviation of (1):
1. Lewis, a man to whom hard work never came amiss, sifted the
question thoroughly.
2. Lewis, to whom hard work never came amiss, sifted the question....
In (1), a comment is introduced by ‘a man’ in apposition with Lewis; ‘a
man’ is antecedent to a defining relative clause; separate them, and
the antecedent is meaningless. But next remove the connecting words ‘a
man’, and the relative changes at once its antecedent and its nature:
the antecedent is ‘Lewis’; the relative is non-defining; and the
clause _is_ a comment, and does not merely contribute to one.
=b. ‘That’ and ‘who’ or ‘which’.=
‘That’ is evidently regarded by many writers as nothing more than
an ornamental variation for ‘who’ and ‘which’, to be used, not
indeed immoderately, but quite without discrimination. The opinion
is excusable; it is not easy to draw any distinction that is at all
consistently supported by usage. There was formerly a tendency to use
‘that’ for everything: the tendency now is to use ‘who’ and ‘which’
for everything. ‘That’, from disuse, has begun to acquire an archaic
flavour, which with some authors is a recommendation. De Quincey, for
one, must certainly have held that in exalted prose ‘that’, in all
connexions, was the more dignified relative; his higher flights abound
in curious uses of the word, some instances of which are quoted below.
This confusion is to be regretted; for although no distinction can
be authoritatively drawn between the two relatives, an obvious one
presents itself. The few limitations on ‘that’ and ‘who’ about which
every one is agreed all point to ‘that’ as the defining relative,
‘who’ or ‘which’ as the non-defining. We cannot say ‘My father, that
left Berlin last night, will shortly arrive’, and an examination of
instances would show that we can never use ‘that’ where the clause is
unmistakably non-defining. On the other hand, we cannot say ‘All which
I can do is useless’; this time, it is true, the generalization will
not hold; ‘which’ can, and sometimes must, be used, and ‘who’ commonly
is used, in defining clauses. But that is explained partly by the
obvious inconvenience sometimes attending the use of ‘that’, and partly
by the general tendency to exclude it from regular use, which has
already resulted in making it seem archaic when used of persons, except
in certain formulae.
The rules given below are a modification of this principle, that
‘that’ is the defining, ‘who’ or ‘which’ the non-defining relative;
the reason for each modification is given in its place. We must here
remind the reader of the distinction drawn in a. between defining and
non-defining clauses: a defining clause limits the application of the
antecedent, enabling us to select from the whole class to which the
antecedent is applicable the particular individual or individuals meant.
1. ‘That’ should never be used to introduce a non-defining clause; it
is therefore improperly used in all the following examples:
But by her side was kneeling her better angel, that hid his face with
wings: that wept and pleaded for her: that prayed when she could not:
that fought with Heaven by tears for her deliverance.--DE QUINCEY.
Rendering thanks to God in the highest--that, having hid his face
through one generation behind thick clouds of war, once again was
ascending.--DE QUINCEY.
And with my own little stock of money besides, that Mrs. Hoggarty’s
card-parties had lessened by a good five-and-twenty shillings, I
calculated....--THACKERAY.
How to keep the proper balance between these two testy old wranglers,
that rarely pull the right way together, is as much....--MEREDITH.
Nataly promised amendment, with a steely smile, that his lips mimicked
fondly.--MEREDITH.
It is opposed to our Constitution, that only allows the Crown to
remove a Norwegian Civil servant.--NANSEN.
I cannot but feel that in my person and over my head you desire to pay
an unexampled honour to the great country that I represent, to its
Bench and Bar, that daily share your labours and keep step with your
progress.--CHOATE.
‘That I represent’ is right: ‘that daily share’ is wrong.
As to dictionaries of the present day, that swell every few years
by the thousand items, the presence of a word in one of them shows
merely....--R. G. WHITE.
The sandy strip along the coast is fed only by a few scanty streams,
that furnish a remarkable contrast to the vast volumes of water which
roll down the Eastern sides.--PRESCOTT.
‘That’ and ‘which’ should change places.
The social and economic sciences, that now specially interest me, have
no considerable place in such a reform.--_Times._
If this is a defining clause, excluding ‘the social and economic
sciences that’ do _not_ interest the writer, the comma after ‘sciences’
should be removed.
2. ‘Who’ or ‘which’ should not be used in defining clauses except when
custom, euphony, or convenience is decidedly against the use of ‘that’.
The principal exceptions will be noted below; but we shall first give
instances in which ‘that’ is rightly used, and others in which it might
have been used with advantage.
In those highly impressionable years that lie between six and
ten....--_Spectator._
The obstacles that hedge in children from Nature....--_Spectator._
The whole producing an effect that is not without a certain
poetry.--_Times._
He will do anything that he deems convenient.--BORROW.
The well-staffed and well-equipped ‘High Schools’ that are now at work
... had not yet sprung into being.--_Times._
Then, Sir, you keep up revenue laws which are mischievous, in order to
preserve trade laws that are useless.--BURKE.
‘That’ should have been used in both clauses.
The struggle that lay before him.--J. R. GREEN.
There goes another sort of animal that is differentiating from my
species....--H. G. WELLS.
There are other powers, too, that could perform this grateful but
onerous duty.--_Times._
In the following examples, ‘that’ is to be preferred to ‘which’;
especially with antecedent ‘it’, and after a superlative or other word
of exclusive or comprehensive meaning, such as ‘all’, ‘only’, ‘any’.
The opportunities which London has given them.--_Times._
The principles which underlay the agreement.--_Times._
One cause which surely contributes to this effect has its root in
early childhood.--_Spectator._
A meeting which was held yesterday, which consisted in the main of a
bitter personal attack.--ROSEBERY.
‘Which consisted’ is right: but we should have ‘that was held’; the
clause defines.
The first thing which the person who desires to be amiable must
determine to do is....--_Spectator._
The most abominable din and confusion which it is possible for a
reasonable person to conceive.--POE.
Reverential objections, composed of all which his unstained family
could protest.--MEREDITH.
He required all the solace which he could derive from literary
success.--MACAULAY.
All the evidence which we have ever seen tends to prove....--MACAULAY.
A battle more bloody than any which Europe saw in the long interval
between Malplaquet and Eylau.--MACAULAY.
The only other biography which counts for much is....--_Times._
The French Government are anxious to avoid anything which might be
regarded as a breach of neutrality.--_Times._
It was the ecclesiastical synods which by their example led the way to
our national parliaments.--J. R. GREEN.
It is the little threads of which the inner substance of the nerves is
composed which subserve sensation.--HUXLEY.
‘Of which’ in a defining clause is one of the recognized exceptions;
but we ought to have ‘that subserve’.
It is not wages and costs of handling which fall, but profits and
rents.--_Times._
It has been French ports which have been chosen for the beginning and
for the end of his cruise.--_Times._
Who is it who talks about moral geography?--E. F. BENSON.
3. We come now to the exceptions. The reader will have noticed that of
all the instances given in (2) there is only one--the last--in which we
recommend the substitution of ‘that’ for ‘who’; in all the others, it
is a question between ‘that’ and ‘which’. ‘That’, used of persons, has
in fact come to look archaic: the only cases in which it is now to be
preferred to ‘who’ are those mentioned above as particularly requiring
‘that’ instead of ‘which’; those, namely, in which the antecedent is
‘it’, or has attached to it a superlative or other word of exclusive
meaning. We should not, therefore, in the _Spectator_ instance above,
substitute ‘the person that desires’ for ‘who desires’; but we should
say
The most impartial critic that could be found.
The only man that I know of.
Any one that knows anything knows this.
It was you that said so.
Who is it that talks about moral geography?
Outside these special types, ‘that’ used of persons is apt to sound
archaic.
4. It will also have been noticed that all the relatives in (2)
were either in the subjective case, or in the objective without
a preposition. ‘That’ has no possessive case, and cannot take a
preposition before it. Accordingly ‘the man that I found the hat of’
will of course give place to ‘the man whose hat I found’; and ‘the
house in which this happened’ will generally be preferred to ‘the
house that this happened in’. The latter tendency is modified in the
spoken language by the convenient omission of ‘that’; for always in
a defining clause, though never in a non-defining, a relative in the
objective case, with or without a preposition, can be dropped. But few
writers like, as a general rule, either to drop their relatives or to
put prepositions at the end. ‘The friends I was travelling with’, ‘the
book I got it from’, ‘the place I found it in’, will therefore usually
appear as
The friends with whom I was travelling.
The book from which I got it.
The place in which I found it.
5. Euphony demands that ‘that that’ should become ‘that which’, even
when the words are separated; and many writers, from a feeling that
‘which’ is the natural correlative of the demonstrative ‘that’, prefer
the plural ‘those which’; but the first example quoted in (2) seems to
show that ‘those ... that’ can be quite unobjectionable.
6. A certain awkwardness seems to attend the use of ‘that’ when the
relative is widely separated from its antecedent. When, for instance,
two relative clauses are coordinate, some writers use ‘that’ in the
first, ‘which’ in the second clause, though both define. This point
will be illustrated in c., where we shall notice that inconsistency in
this respect sometimes obscures the sense.
It may seem to the reader that a rule with so many exceptions to it
is not worth observing. We would remind him (i) that it is based upon
those palpable misuses of the relatives about which every one is
agreed; (ii) that of the exceptions the first and last result from,
and might disappear with, the encroachment of ‘who’ and the general
vagueness about the relatives; while the other two, being obvious and
clearly defined, do not interfere with the remaining uses of ‘that’;
(iii) that if we are to be at the expense of maintaining two different
relatives, we may as well give each of them definite work to do.
In the following subsections we shall not often allude to the
distinction here laid down. The reader will find that our rules are
quite as often violated as observed; and may perhaps conclude that if
the vital difference between a defining and a non-defining clause were
consistently marked, wherever it is possible, by a discriminating use
of ‘that’ and ‘which’, false coordination and other mishandlings of the
relatives would be less common than they are.
=c. ‘And who’; ‘and which’.=
The various possibilities of relative coordination, right and wrong,
may be thus stated: (i) a relative clause may be rightly or wrongly
coordinated with another relative clause; this we shall call ‘open’
coordination; (ii) it may be rightly or wrongly coordinated with words
that are equivalent to a relative clause, and for which a relative
clause can be substituted; ‘latent’ coordination; (iii) a clause that
has obviously no coordinate, open or latent, may yet be introduced by
‘and’ or other word implying coordination; for such offenders, which
cannot be coordinate and will not be subordinate, ‘insubordination’ is
not too harsh a term.
The following are ordinary types of the three classes:
(i) Men who are ambitious, and whose ambition has never been thwarted,
....
Pitt, who was ambitious, but whose ambition was qualified by....
(ii) Ambitious men, and whose ambition has never been thwarted, ....
An evil now, alas! beyond our power to remedy, and for which we have
to thank the folly of our predecessors.
(iii) Being thus pressed, he grudgingly consented at last to a
redistribution, and which, I need not say, it was his duty to have
offered in the first instance.
A coordination in which ‘and’ is the natural conjunction may also be
indicated simply by a comma; there is safety in this course, since the
clause following the comma may be either coordinate or subordinate. But
we have to deal only with clauses that are committed to coordination.
‘Insubordination’ will not detain us long; it is always due either to
negligence or to gross ignorance; we shall illustrate it in its place
with a few examples, but shall not discuss it. With regard, however,
to open and latent coordination opinions differ; there is an optimist
view of open coordination, and a pessimist view of latent, both of
which seem to us incorrect. It is held by some that open coordination
(provided that the relatives have the same antecedent) is never wrong,
and by some--not necessarily others--that latent coordination is never
right: we shall endeavour to show that the former is often wrong, and
the latter, however ungainly, often right.
The essential to coordination is that the coordinates should be
performing the same function in the sentence. It is not necessary, nor
is it enough, that they should be in the same grammatical form: things
of the same form may have different functions, and things of different
forms may have the same function. If we say ‘Unambitious men, and who
have no experience’, ‘unambitious’ and ‘who have no experience’ are not
in the same form, but they have the same function--that of specifying
the class of men referred to. Their grammatical forms (vocabulary
permitting) are interchangeable: a defining adjective can always take
the form of a relative clause, and a defining relative clause can often
take the form of an adjective: ‘inexperienced men, and who have no
ambition’. ‘Unambitious’ is therefore the true grammatical equivalent
of ‘who have no ambition’, and latent coordination between it and a
relative clause is admissible.
On the other hand, among things that have the same grammatical form,
but different functions, are the defining and the non-defining relative
clause. A non-defining clause, we know, can be removed without
disturbing the truth of the predication; it has therefore no essential
function; it cannot therefore have the same function as a defining
clause, whose function we know to be essential. It follows that open
coordination is not admissible between a defining and a non-defining
clause; and, generally, coordination, whether open or latent, is
admissible between two defining or two non-defining coordinates, but
not between a defining and a non-defining.
Our object, however, in pointing out what seems to be the true
principle of relative coordination is not by any means to encourage the
latent variety. It has seldom any advantage over full coordination;
it is perhaps more apt to lead to actual blunders; it is usually
awkward; and it does violence--needless violence, as often as not--to
a very widespread and not unreasonable prejudice. Many writers may
be suspected of using it, against their better judgement, merely for
the purpose of asserting a right; it is their natural protest against
the wholesale condemnation of ignorant critics, who do not see that
latent coordination may be nothing worse than clumsy, and that open
coordination may be a gross blunder. For the benefit of such critics it
seems worth while to examine the correctness of various examples, both
open and latent; on the other merits and demerits of the latent variety
the reader will form his own judgement.
(i) =Open coordination.=
A few minutes brought us to a large and busy bazaar, with the
localities of which the stranger appeared well acquainted, and where
his original demeanour again became apparent.--POE.
Mr. Lovelace has seen divers apartments at Windsor; but not one,
he says, that he thought fit for me, and which, at the same time,
answered my description.--RICHARDSON.
All the toys that infatuate men, and which they play for, are the
self-same thing.--EMERSON.
All these are correct: in the first both clauses are non-defining, in
the others both define.
The hills were so broken and precipitous as to afford no passage
except just upon the narrow line of the track which we occupied, and
which was overhung with rocks, from which we might have been destroyed
merely by rolling down stones.--SCOTT.
Wrong: the first clause defines, the second not.
From doing this they were prevented by the disgraceful scene which
took place, and which the leader of the Opposition took no steps to
avert.--_Times._
Wrong. The first clause defines, the second is obviously one of
comment: the ‘scene’ is not distinguished from those that the leader
_did_ take steps to avert.
They propose that the buildings shall belong ... to the communes
in which they stand, and which, it is hoped, will not permit their
desecration.--_Spectator._
Wrong. The communes that ‘will not permit’ are not meant to be
distinguished from those that will. The second clause is comment, the
first defines.
The way in which she jockeyed Jos, and which she described with
infinite fun, carried up his delight to a pitch....--THACKERAY.
In the best French which he could muster, and which in sooth was of a
very ungrammatical sort....--THACKERAY.
Peggy ... would have liked to have shown her turban and bird of
paradise at the ball, but for the information which her husband had
given her, and which made her very grave.--THACKERAY.
All these are wrong. Thackeray would probably have been saved from
these false coordinations if he had observed the distinction between
‘that’ and ‘which’: ‘In the best French (that) he could muster, which
in sooth was...’.
There goes another sort of animal that is differentiating from my
species, and which I would gladly see exterminated.--H. G. WELLS.
Probably the second clause, like the first, is meant to define: if so,
the coordination is right; if not, it is wrong. We have alluded to the
tendency to avoid ‘that’ when the relative is widely separated from its
antecedent; here, the result is ambiguity.
And here he said in German what he wished to say, and which was of no
great importance, and which I translated into English.--BORROW.
Wrong: ‘what (that which)’ defines, the ‘and which’ clauses do not.
(ii) =Latent coordination=, between relative clause and equivalent,
is seldom correct when the relative clause is non-defining; for the
equivalent, with few and undesirable exceptions, is always a defining
adjective or phrase, and can be coordinate only with a defining
clause. The equivalent must of course be a true one; capable, that
is, of being converted into a relative clause without altering the
effect of the sentence. Neglect of this restriction often results in
false coordination, especially in one particular type of sentence.
Suppose that a historian, after describing some national calamity,
proceeds: ‘In these distressing circumstances....’ Here we might seem
to have two possible equivalents, ‘these’ and ‘distressing’. First
let us expand ‘these’ into a relative clause: ‘In the distressing
circumstances that I have described’. This, in the context, is a fair
equivalent, and as often as not would actually appear instead of
‘these’. But next expand ‘distressing’: ‘In these circumstances, which
were distressing’, a non-defining clause. To this expansion no writer
would consent; it defeats the object for which ‘distressing’ was placed
before the antecedent. That object was to record his own sensibility
without disparaging the reader’s by telling him in so many words (as
our relative clause does) that the circumstances were distressing; and
it is secured by treating ‘distressing’ not as a separate predication
but as an inseparable part of the antecedent. ‘Distressing’, it will
be observed, cannot give us a defining clause; it is obviously meant
to be co-extensive with ‘these’; we are not to select from ‘these’
circumstances those only that are ‘distressing’. Moreover, as ‘these’,
although capable of appearing as a relative clause, can scarcely
require another relative clause to complete the limitation of the
antecedent, it follows that in sentences of this form coordination will
generally be wrong. We have examples in the Cowper quotation below,
and in the anonymous one that precedes it.
Juices ready prepared, and which can be absorbed immediately.--HUXLEY.
A deliberate attempt to frame and to verify general rules as to
phenomena of all kinds, and which can, therefore, be propagated by
argument or persuasion....--L. STEPHEN.
‘Rules that shall be general, and that can....’
A painful, comprehensive survey of a very complicated matter,
and which requires a great variety of considerations, is to be
made.--BURKE.
The goldsmith to the royal household, and who, if fame spoke true,
oftentimes acted as their banker, ... was a person of too much
importance to...--SCOTT.
‘The man who was goldsmith to ... and who’.
It is a compliment due, and which I willingly pay, to those who
administer our affairs.--BURKE.
All these are correct, with defining coordinates throughout.
‘A junior subaltern, with pronounced military and political views,
with no false modesty in expressing them, and who (sic) possesses the
ear of the public, ....’--(Quoted by the _Times_.)
‘Who has ... views, and who....’ ‘Sic’ is the comment of the _Times_
writer. The coordination is correct.
While there, she had ample opportunity afforded her of studying
fashionable life in all its varied and capricious moods, and which
have been preserved to posterity in her admirable delineations of
character.
I am sensible that you cannot in my uncle’s present infirm state, and
of which it is not possible to expect any considerable amendment,
indulge us with a visit.--COWPER.
These are the instances of false expansion alluded to above. The former
is based on the non-defining expansion ‘in all its moods, which are
varied and capricious’; the true expansion being ‘in all the varied and
capricious moods in which it reveals itself’, a defining clause, which
will not do with the ‘and which’. Similarly, the second is based on the
non-defining expansion ‘in my uncle’s present state, which is an infirm
one’; the true expansion is ‘in the infirm state in which my uncle now
is’. In both, a non-defining clause is coordinated with words that can
only yield a defining clause.
Previous to the innovations introduced by the Tudors, and which had
been taken away by the bill against pressing soldiers, the King in
himself had no power of calling on his subjects generally to bear
arms.--J. R. GREEN.
If the writer means us to distinguish, among the innovations introduced
by the Tudors, those that had also been taken away, the ‘and which’
clause defines, and the coordination is right. But more probably the
clause conveys independent information; the coordination is then wrong.
[The various arrangements of _pueri puellam amabant_] all have the
same meaning--the boys loved the girl. For _puellam_ shows by its form
that it must be the object of the action; _amabant_ must have for
its subject a plural substantive, and which must therefore be, not
_puellam_, but _pueri_.--R. G. WHITE.
Wrong. ‘A plural substantive’ can yield only the defining clause ‘a
substantive that is plural’. Now these words contain an inference
from a general grammatical principle (that a plural verb must have a
plural subject); and any supplementary defining clause must also be
general, not (like the ‘and which’ clause) particular. We might have,
for instance, ‘Amabant, being plural, and finite, must have for its
subject a plural substantive, and which is in the nominative case’. But
the ‘and which’ clause is evidently non-defining; the inference ends at
‘substantive’; then comes the application of it to the particular case.
He refused to adopt the Restrictive Theory, and impose a numerical
limit on the Bank’s issues, and which he again protested against in
1833.--H. D. MACLEOD.
Wrong. The ‘and which’ clause is non-defining; none of the three
possible antecedents (‘Theory’, ‘limit’, ‘imposition’) will give a
non-defining clause.
The great obstacle ... is the religion of Europe, and which has
unhappily been colonially introduced into America.--BEACONSFIELD.
This illustrates an important point. ‘Of Europe’ gives the defining
clause ‘that prevails in Europe’; the coordination therefore requires
that the ‘and which’ clause should define. Now a defining clause must
contain no word that is not meant to contribute to definition; if,
then, the ‘and which’ clause defines, the writer wishes to distinguish
the religion in question, not only from those European religions that
have not been colonially introduced into America, but also from those
European religions that have been introduced, but whose introduction
is not a matter for regret; that is the only defining meaning that
‘unhappily’ can bear, and unless we accept this interpretation the
clause is non-defining.--We shall allude to this sentence again in
d., where the possibilities of parenthesis in a defining clause are
discussed.
It may seem strange that this important place should not have been
conferred on Vaca de Castro, already on the spot, and who had shown
himself so well qualified to fill it.--PRESCOTT.
One of our ‘few and undesirable exceptions’, in which the
clause-equivalent is non-defining (‘who was already on the spot’); for
a person’s name can only require a defining clause to distinguish him
from others of the same name. The sentence is an ugly one, even if we
remove the ‘and who’ clause; but the coordination is right.
(iii) =Insubordination.=
The struggler, the poor clerk, mechanic, poorer musician, artist, or
actor, feels no right to intrude, and who quickly falls from a first
transient resentment....--_Daily Telegraph._
Such a person may reside there with absolute safety, unless it becomes
the object of the government to secure his person; and which purpose,
even then, might be disappointed by early intelligence.--SCOTT.
All this when Madame saw, and of which when she took note, her sole
observation was:--...--C. BRONTË.
To these we may add examples in which the coordinated relatives
have different antecedents. In practice, nothing can justify such
coordination: in theory, it is admissible when the antecedents are
coordinate, as in the following sentence:
We therefore delivered the supplies to those individuals, and at those
places, to whom the special grants had been made, and for which they
were originally designed.
But in the following instances, one antecedent is subordinate to
another in the same clause, or is in a clause subordinate to that of
the other.
They marched into the apartment where the banquet was served; and
which, as I have promised the reader he shall enjoy it, he shall have
the liberty of ordering himself.--THACKERAY.
A large mineral-water firm in London, whose ordinary shares are a
million in value, and which shares always paid a dividend before
the imposition of the sugar-tax, have not paid any dividend
since.--_Times._
He very much doubted whether I could find it on his mine, which was
located some five miles from St. Austell, Cornwall, and upon whose
property I had never been.--_Times._
But I have besought my mother, who is apprehensive of Mr. Lovelace’s
visits, and for fear of whom my uncles never stir out without arms,
...--RICHARDSON.
It was of Mr. Lovelace that the uncles were afraid.
=d. Case of the relative.=
Special attention was not drawn, in the section on Case, to the gross
error committed in the following examples:
Instinctively apprehensive of her father, whom she supposed it was,
she stopped in the dark.--DICKENS.
That peculiar air of contempt commonly displayed by insolent menials
to those whom they imagine are poor.--CORELLI.
It is only those converted by the Gospel whom we pretend are
influenced by it.--_Daily Telegraph._
We found those whom we feared might be interested to withhold the
settlement alert and prompt to assist us.--GALT.
Mr. Dombey, whom he now began to perceive was as far beyond human
recall.--DICKENS.
Those whom it was originally pronounced would be allowed to
go.--_Spectator._
But this looks as if he has included the original 30,000 men whom he
desires ‘should be in the country now’.--_Times._
We feed children whom we think are hungry.--_Times._
The only gentlemen holding this office in the island, whom, he felt
sure, would work for the spiritual good of the parish.--_Guernsey
Advertiser._
These writers evidently think that in ‘whom we think are hungry’ ‘whom’
is the object of ‘we think’. The relative is in fact the subject of
‘are’; and the object of ‘we know’ is the clause ‘who are hungry’; the
order of the words is a necessary result of the fact that a relative
subject must stand at the beginning of its clause.
(The same awkward necessity confronts us in clauses with ‘when’,
‘though’, &c., in which the subject is a relative. Such clauses are
practically recognized as impossible, though Otway, in a courageous
moment, wrote:
Unblemished honour, and a spotless love;
_Which tho’_ perhaps now _know_ another flame,
Yet I have love and passion for their name.)
Some writers, with a consistency worthy of a better cause, carry the
blunder into the passive, renouncing the advantages of an ambiguous
‘which’ in the active; for in the active ‘which’ of course tells no
tales.
As to all this, the trend of events has been the reverse of
that which was anticipated would be the result of democratic
institutions.--_Times._
‘Which _it_ was anticipated would be’. Similarly, the passive
of ‘men whom we-know-are-honest’ is the impossible ‘men who
are-known-are-honest’: ‘men who we know are honest’ gives the correct
passive ‘men who it is known are honest’.
Nor must it be supposed that ‘we know’ is parenthetic. In non-defining
clauses (Jones, who we know is honest), we can regard the words as
parenthetic if we choose, except when the phrase is negative (Jones,
who I cannot think is honest); but in a defining clause they are
anything but parenthetic. When we say ‘Choose men who you know are
honest’, the words ‘you know’ add a new circumstance of limitation:
it is not enough that the men should in fact be honest; you must know
them to be honest; honest men of whose honesty you are not certain
are excluded by the words ‘you know’. Similarly, in the _Guernsey
Advertiser_ quotation above, the writer does not go the length of
saying that these are the only gentlemen who would work: he says that
they are the only ones of whom he feels sure. The commas of parenthesis
ought therefore to go, as well as the comma at ‘island’, which is
improper before a defining clause.
The circumstances under which a parenthesis is admissible in a defining
clause may here be noticed.
(i) When the clause is too strict in its limitation, it may be modified
by a parenthesis:
Choose men who, during their time of office, have never been suspected.
A whole class, excluded by the defining clause, is made eligible by the
parenthesis.
(ii) Similarly, a parenthesis may be added to tell us that within the
limits of the defining clause we have perfect freedom of choice:
Choose men who, at one time or another, have held office.
They must have held office, that is all; it does not matter when.
(iii) Words of comment, indicating the writer’s authority for his
limitation, his recognition of the sentiments that it may arouse, and
the like, properly stand outside the defining clause: when they are
placed within it, they ought to be marked as parenthetic.
There are men who, so I am told, prefer a lie to truth on its own
merits.
The religion that obtains in Europe, and that, unhappily, has been
introduced into America.
The latter sentence is an adaptation of one considered above on
p. 91. ‘Unhappily’ there appeared not as a parenthesis but as
an inseparable part of the relative clause, which was therefore
defining or non-defining, according as ‘unhappily’ could or could
not be considered as adding to the limitation. But with the altered
punctuation ‘unhappily’ is separable from the relative clause, which
may now define: ‘that obtains in Europe and (I am sorry to have to add)
in America.’
In sentences of this last type, the parenthesis is inserted in
the defining clause only for convenience: in the others, it is an
essential, though a negative, part of the definition. But all three
types of parenthesis agree in this, that they do not limit the
antecedent; they differ completely from the phrases considered above,
which do limit the antecedent, and are not parenthetic.
=e. Miscellaneous uses and abuses of the relative.=
(i) A relative clause is sometimes coordinated with an independent
sentence; such coordination is perhaps always awkward, but is not
always incorrect. The question arises chiefly when the two have a
common subject expressed only in the relative clause; for when the
subject is expressed in both, the independent sentence may be taken to
be coordinate, not with the relative clause, but with the main sentence
to which the relative clause is attached, as in the following instance:
To begin with, he had left no message, which in itself I felt to be a
suspicious circumstance, and (I) was at my wits’ end how to account
plausibly for his departure.
Retain ‘I’, and ‘I was’ may be coordinate with ‘he had left’: remove
it, and the coordination is necessarily between ‘I was’ and ‘I felt’.
In our next examples the writers are committed:
These beatitudes are just laws which we have been neglecting, and have
been receiving in ourselves the consequences that were meet.--_Daily
Telegraph._
The idea which mankind most commonly conceive of proportion, is the
suitableness of means to certain ends, and, where this is not the
question, very seldom trouble themselves about the effect of different
measures of things.--BURKE.
Fictitious capital, a name of extreme inaccuracy, which too many
persons are in the habit of using, from the hasty assumption that what
is not real must necessarily be fictitious, and are more led away by a
jingling antithesis of words than an accurate perception of ideas.--H.
D. MACLEOD.
The first two of these are wrongly coordinated: the third, a curiosity
in other respects, is in this respect right. The reason is that in the
first two we have a defining, in the third a non-defining relative
clause. A defining clause is grammatically equivalent to an adjective
(‘violated laws’, ‘the popular idea’), and can be coordinated only with
another word or phrase performing the same function; now the phrase ‘we
have been receiving’, not being attached to the antecedent by means of
a relative, expressed or understood, is not equivalent to an adjective.
We could have had ‘and (which we) have been properly punished _for
neglecting_’, or we could have had the ‘and’ sentence in an adverbial
form, ‘with the fitting result’; but coordination between the two as
they stand is impossible.
The Burke sentence is a worse offender. Coordination of this kind is
not often attempted when the antecedent of the relative is _subject_
of the main sentence; and when it is attempted, the two coordinates
must of course not be separated by the predicate. If we had had ‘the
idea which mankind most commonly conceive of proportion, and very
seldom trouble themselves about anything further’, the coordination
would have been similar to the other, and could have been rectified
in the same way (‘and beyond which they very seldom ...’, or ‘to the
exclusion of any other considerations’). But this alteration we cannot
make; for there is a further and an essential difference. The _Daily
Telegraph_ writer evidently _meant_ his second coordinate to do the
work of a defining clause; he has merely failed to make the necessary
connexion, which we supply, as above, either by turning the words into
a second defining clause, or by embodying them, adverbially, in the
first. Burke’s intention is different, and would not be represented by
our proposed alteration in the order. All that a defining clause can do
in his sentence is to tell us _what_ idea is going to be the subject.
If we were to give a brief paraphrase of the whole, italicizing the
words that represent the second coordinate, it would be, not ‘mankind’s
_sole_ idea of proportion is the suitableness ...’, but ‘mankind’s idea
of proportion is the suitableness ..., _and very little else_’; for
the question answered is, not ‘what is mankind’s sole idea?’ but ‘what
is mankind’s idea?’ In other words, the second coordinate belongs in
intention not, like the relative clause, to the subject, but to the
predicate; to rectify it, we must either make it part of the predicate
(‘and is not concerned with ...’), or, by inserting ‘they’, coordinate
it with the main sentence. Obvious as the latter correction is, the
sentence repays close examination, as illustrating the incoherence of
thought that may underlie what seems a very trifling grammatical slip.
But in our third example, the relative clause is non-defining; it is
grammatically equivalent to, and could be replaced by, an independent
sentence: ‘Many persons are in the habit of using it’. There is nothing
grammatically wrong in this type of coordination; it is objectionable
only because it seems to promise what it does not fulfil. When the
common subject of two coordinates is expressed only with the first, it
is natural to assume that all words preceding it are also to be applied
to both coordinates; and the violation of this principle, though not
of course ungrammatical, is often felt to be undesirable in other than
relative clauses.
(ii) In the sentences considered above, the antecedent of the relative
did not belong to the second coordinate, and could not have been
represented in it without the material alterations there proposed. But
it may also happen that the antecedent, as in the following examples,
belongs equally to both coordinates, being represented in the first by
a relative, in the second by some other pronoun.
There were two or three _whose_ accuracy was more scrupulous, _their_
judgement more uniformly sober and cautious.--BRYCE.
He renewed the old proposal, _which_ Pizarro treated as a piece of
contemptible shuffling, and curtly rejected _it_.
_Which_ she has it in her option either to do or to let _it_
alone.--RICHARDSON.
In the pair of parallel coordinates from Mr. Bryce, insert the
suppressed ‘was’, and it becomes clear that ‘whose’, not ‘their’, is
the right pronoun.
In the ‘Pizarro’ sentence, ‘it’ is not only superfluous, but disturbing
to the reader, who assumes that ‘which’ is common to both clauses, and
on reaching ‘it’ has to glance back and check the sentence. Here,
as often, the pronoun seems to be added to restore an ill-balanced
sentence; but that can be done in several other ways. In the Richardson
sentence also the ‘it’ should go.
More commonly, the repetition of the antecedent in another form results
from the superstitious avoidance of a preposition at the end:
A demand by Norway for political separation, to which Sweden will not
assent, but will not go to war to prevent it.--_Times._
‘To (which)’ is not common to both coordinates: accordingly the writer
finds it necessary to give ‘it’ in the second. But, even if we respect
our superstition, and exclude ‘which Sweden will not assent to, but
will not go to war to prevent’, we have still the two possibilities
of (1) complete relative coordination, ‘to ..., but which ...’; (2)
subordination, ‘though she will not go to war to prevent it’.
In our next example, Lord Rosebery, again for fear of a preposition at
the end, falls into the trap clumsily avoided by the _Times_ writer:
That promised land for which he was to prepare, but scarcely to enter.
So perhaps Bagehot, though his verb may be _conceive of_:
English trade is carried on upon borrowed capital to an extent of
which few foreigners have an idea, and none of our ancestors could
have conceived.
(iii) When the relative is the subject of both coordinates, or the
object of both, its repetition in the second is a matter of choice. But
to omit the relative when it is in a different case from the first is a
gross, though not uncommon, blunder. The following are instances:
A league which their posterity for many ages kept so inviolably,
and proved so advantageous for both the kingdoms of France and
Scotland.--LOCKHART.
Questions which we either do not put to ourselves, or are turned aside
with traditional replies.--MARK RUTHERFORD.
It is just conceivable that in the last of these the subject of ‘are’
is ‘we’: if so, the sentence is to be referred to (i) above (wrong
coordination of an independent sentence with a defining relative
clause).
It is not easy to see why the relative more than other words should be
mishandled in this way; few would write (but see p. 61, s. f.) ‘This
league we kept and has proved advantageous’.
The condensed antecedent-relative ‘what’ is only an apparent exception
to this universal rule. In the sentence ‘What I hold is mine’, ‘what’
is only object to ‘hold’, not subject to ‘is’; the subject to ‘is’ is
the whole noun-clause ‘what I hold’. Sentences of this type, so far
from being exceptions, often give a double illustration of the rule,
and leave a double possibility of error. For just as a single ‘what’
cannot stand in different relations to two coordinate verbs in its
clause, so a single noun-clause cannot stand in different relations to
two coordinate main verbs. We can say ‘What I have and hold’, where
‘what’ is object to both verbs, and ‘what is mine and has been fairly
earned by me’, where it is subject to both; but we cannot say ‘what I
have and has been fairly earned by me’. Similarly, we can say ‘What
I have is mine and shall remain mine’, where the noun-clause ‘what I
have’ is subject to both verbs, and ‘What I have I mean to keep, and
will surrender to no man’, where it is object to both; but not ‘What I
have is mine, and I will surrender to no man’. Of the various ways of
avoiding this error (subordination, adaptation of verbs, insertion of
a pronoun, relative or otherwise), that chosen by Miss Brontë below is
perhaps the least convenient. Her sentence is, however, correct; that
from the _Spectator_ is not.
Not mere empty ideas, but what were once realities, and that I long
have thought decayed.--C. BRONTË.
Whatever we possessed in 1867 the British Empire possesses now, and is
part of the Dominion of Canada.--_Spectator._
‘Things that were once realities, and that I long have thought
decayed’; a pair of defining clauses.
The condensed ‘what’ must of course be distinguished from the ‘what’
of indirect questions, which is not relative but interrogative. In
the following example, confusion of the two leads to an improper
coordination.
What sums he made can only be conjectured, but must have been
enormous.--MACAULAY.
In the first sentence, ‘what’ is an interrogative, in the second, a
condensed antecedent-relative, standing for ‘the sums that’. It is the
sums that were enormous: it is the answer to the question ‘What sums
did he make?’ that can only be conjectured. The mistake is possible
only because ‘can’ and ‘must’ do not reveal their number: ‘can’ is
singular, ‘must’ plural.
The differentiation between the two _what_s and their equivalents
is not, indeed, complete: just as the condensed antecedent-relative
resembles in form, though not in treatment, the unresolved
interrogative, so the interrogative, by resolution into ‘the ... that
(which)’, not only resembles, but is grammatically identified with,
the uncondensed relative and antecedent. The resolution is, no doubt,
convenient: it should be noticed, however, that the verbs with which
alone it can be employed (verbs that may denote either perception of
a fact or other kinds of perception) are precisely those with which
ambiguity may result. ‘I know the house (that) you mean’: it may
(antecedent and relative) or may not (resolved interrogative) follow
that I have ever seen it. ‘We must first discover the scoundrel who
did it’; antecedent and relative? then we must secure the scoundrel’s
person; resolved interrogative? then only information is needed.
‘I can give a good guess at the problem that is puzzling you’: and
the solution?--I know nothing of the solution; I was resolving an
interrogative.
This, however, does not affect sentences like the Macaulay one above:
for although the resolved or uncondensed forms (‘the ... which’) are
grammatically identified, the condensed or unresolved forms (‘what’)
are not.
(iv) The omission of the relative in isolated clauses (as opposed to
coordinates) is a question not of correctness but of taste, so far
as there is any question at all. A non-defining relative can never be
omitted. The omission of a defining relative subject is often effective
in verse, but in prose is either an archaism or a provincialism. It
may, moreover, result in obscurity, as in the second of our examples,
which may possibly puzzle the reader for a moment:
Now it would be some fresh insect won its way to a temporary fatal new
development--H. G. WELLS.
No one finds himself planted at last in so terribly foul a morass, as
he would fain stand still for ever on dry ground.--TROLLOPE.
But when the defining relative is object, or has a preposition, there
is no limit to the omission, unless euphony is allowed to be one. We
give three instances in which the reader may or may not agree that the
relative might have been retained with advantage:
We do that in our zeal our calmer moments would be afraid to
answer.--SCOTT.
But did you ever see anything there you had never seen
before?--BAGEHOT.
These ethical judgements we pass on self-regarding acts are ordinarily
little emphasized.--SPENCER.
(v) When a defining relative has the same preposition as its
antecedent, it is not uncommon, in the written as well as in the
spoken language, to omit the preposition in the relative clause. There
is something to be said for a licence that rids us of such cumbrous
formulae as ‘in the way in which’, ‘to the extent to which’, and the
like; in writing, however, it should be used with caution if at all.
In the first place, if the preposition is to go, the relative should
go too, or if retained should certainly be ‘that’, not ‘which’; and if
the verb of the relative clause is the same as in the main sentence,
it should be represented by ‘do’, or (in a compound tense) by its
auxiliary component.
Because they found that it touched them in a way which no book in the
world could touch them.--_Daily Telegraph._
The man who cleaned the slate in the manner which Sir E. Satow has
done both in Morocco and Japan might surely rank as a reflective
diplomatist.--_Spectator._
‘In a way no other book in the world could’: ‘in the way (that) Sir E.
Satow has done’.
A further limitation is suggested by our next example:
The Great Powers, after producing this absolutely certain result, are
ending with what they ought to have begun,--coercion.--_Spectator._
Here, of course, the relative cannot be omitted, since relative and
antecedent are one. But that is not the principal fault, as will appear
from a resolution of the antecedent-relative: ‘they are ending with
the very thing (that) they ought to have begun ...’. We are now at
liberty to omit our relative or retain it, as we please; in either
case, the omission of ‘with’ is unbearable. The reason is that ‘with’
does not, like the ‘in’ of our former examples, introduce a purely
adverbial phrase: it is an inseparable component of the compound verbs
‘end-with’ and ‘begin-with’, of which the antecedent and relative are
respectively the objects. Similarly, we cannot say ‘He has come to the
precise conclusion (that) I thought he would come’, because we should
be mutilating the verb to ‘come-to’; we can, however, say ‘to the
conclusion (that) I thought he would’, ‘come-to’ being then represented
by ‘would’.
Finally, the omission is justifiable only when antecedent and relative
have the same preposition. Sentences like the next may pass in
conversation, but (except with the one noun _way_) are intolerable in
writing:
One of the greatest dangers in London is the pace that the corners in
the main streets are turned.--_Times._
(vi) The use of ‘such ... who (which)’, ‘such ... that (defining
relative)’, for ‘such ... as’ is sometimes an archaism, sometimes a
vulgarism.
Till such time when we shall throw aside our earthly garment.--_Daily
Telegraph._
Only such supplies were to be made which it would be inhuman to refuse
to ships in distress.--_Times._
The censorship of literature extends to such absurd prohibitions which
it did not reach even during the worst period of the forties.--_Times._
A God in such an abstract sense that, as I have pointed out before,
does not signify.--_Daily Telegraph._
They would find such faith, such belief, that would be a revelation to
them.--_Daily Telegraph._
Swift’s plan was to offer to fulfil it on conditions so insulting that
no one with a grain of self-respect could accept.--L. STEPHEN.
=f. ‘It ... that.’=
Two constructions, closely allied, but grammatically distinct, are
often confused: (i) Antecedent ‘=it=’ followed by a defining relative
clause with ‘that’ (who, which); (ii) ‘=it=’ followed by a clause in
apposition, introduced by the conjunction ‘that’. The various correct
possibilities are represented in the set of examples given below.
Relative clauses are marked R, conjunction clauses C. One impossible
example is added in brackets, to mark the transition from relative to
conjunction.
(1) It is money that I want. R.
(2) It was you that told me. R.
(3) It was you that I gave it to (or, to whom I gave it). R.
(4) It was to you that I gave it. C.
(5) It was the Romans that built this wall. R.
(6) It is the Romans that we are indebted to for this. R.
(7) It is to the Romans that we are indebted for this. C.
(8) It was Jones whose hat I borrowed. R.
(9) It was Jones’s hat that I borrowed. R.
(10) It was a knife that I cut it with. R.
(11) It was with a knife that I cut it. C.
(12) It was with difficulty that I cut it. C.
(13) (It was difficulty that I cut it with.) R.
(14) It was provisionally that I made the offer. C.
(15) It was in this spring, too, that the plague broke out. C.
(16) Accordingly, it was with much concern that I presently received a
note informing me of his departure. C.
In the relative construction, the antecedent ‘it’ is invariable,
whatever the number and gender of the relative. The main verb is also
invariable in number, but in tense is usually adapted to past, though
not (for euphony’s sake) to future circumstances: ‘it was you that
looked foolish’, but ‘it is you that will look foolish’.
In both constructions, the ‘that’ clause, supplemented or introduced
by ‘it’, gives us the subject of a predication, the relative clause
(with _it_) being equivalent to a pure noun, the conjunction clause to
a verbal noun in apposition, partly retaining its verbal character. In
both, also, the predication answers an imaginary question, recorded
distinctly in the relative, less distinctly in the conjunction clause.
‘What do you want?’ ‘It (the thing) that I want is money.’ ‘To whom did
you give it?’ ‘It (the persons) that I gave it to was your friends.’
‘As to your cutting it: give particulars.’ ‘It--that I cut it (my
cutting it)--was with a knife.’
From the above examples it will be seen that the two constructions
largely overlap. When (as in 1, 2, 5, 8) the relative is subject or
direct object of the clause-verb, or is in the possessive case, it
cannot be replaced by the conjunction; but when its relation to the
clause-verb is marked by a preposition, the conjunction always may take
its place, and sometimes must, as in 12 and 13. For the relative clause
can only be used when the question reflected in it is calculated to
secure the right kind of answer. Now the natural answer to the question
‘What did you cut it with?’ is not ‘difficulty’ but ‘a knife’. The
misleading ‘with’ is therefore removed from the relative clause in
13, and placed within the predicate, the definite question ‘What did
you cut it with?’ giving place to the vague demand for particulars.
‘With’ being removed, the relative clause falls to pieces, for want of
a word to govern the relative, and the conjunction clause takes its
place. In the same way, ‘it was _a cab_ (but not _high indignation_)
that he drove away in’; ‘it was _a concert_ (but not _curiosity_) that
I was returning from’; ‘it was a _beech-tree_ (but not _unpleasant
circumstances_) that I found him under’. And, generally, it will be
found that a preposition is admissible in the relative clause only when
used in the literal or the most obvious sense.
The conjunction clause is, as we have said, a verbal noun; so far a
noun that things can be predicated of it, and so far a verb that the
things predicated of it are verbal relations and verbal circumstances,
indirect object, agent, instrument, means, manner, cause, attendant
circumstances; anything but subject and direct object. ‘My giving was
to you’; ‘my offering was provisionally’; ‘my concealing it was because
I was ashamed’.
The mistakes that constantly occur in careless writers result from
hesitation between the two forms where both are possible. The
confusion, however, ought not to arise; for always with a relative
clause, and never with a conjunction, the complement of the main
predicate (the answer to the suppressed question) is a noun or the
grammatical equivalent of a noun. ‘A knife’, ‘Jones’, ‘you’, ‘my friend
in Chicago’, ‘the man who lives next door’, are the answers that
accompany the relative clause: ‘with a knife’, ‘with difficulty’, ‘to
you’, ‘occasionally’, ‘because I was ashamed’, are those that accompany
the conjunction.
Examples 15 and 16, though quite recognized types, are really
artificial perversions. In 15 the true question and answer in the
circumstances would be, not, as the sentence falsely implies, ‘When did
the plague break out?’ ‘That too happened in this same spring’, but
‘Were there any other notable events in this spring?’ ‘Yes: the plague
broke out’. Impressiveness is given to the announcement by the fiction
that the reader is wondering when the plague broke out; in fact, he is
merely waiting for whatever may turn up in the history of this spring.
In 16 we go still further: the implied question, ‘What were your
feelings on receiving a (not _the_) note ...?’ could not possibly be
asked; the information that alone could prompt it is only given in the
‘that’ clause.
It has been pointed out in b. that a relative clause with antecedent
‘it’ particularly calls for the relative ‘that’, in preference
to ‘which’, and even to ‘who’. Even when the relative is in the
possessive case, ‘that’, which has no possessive, is often retained
by transferring to the main predicate the noun on which it depends; 8
thus gives place to 9, even at the risk of ambiguity; for the relative
clause now supplies us with the question (not ‘whose hat ...?’ but)
but ‘what did you borrow?’ leaving us theoretically in doubt whether
Jones’s hat is distinguished from his other property, from other
people’s hats, or from things in general.
On the other hand, the two blunders that are most frequently made
almost invariably have the relative ‘who’ or ‘which’.
And it is to me, the original promoter of the whole scheme, to whom
they would deny my fair share in the profits!
‘To me’ implies a conjunction clause: ‘to whom ...’ is a relative
clause. ‘It is to me that...’.
It was _to Mrs._ Brent, the beetle-browed wife of Mr. Commissary
Brent, _to whom_ the General transferred his attentions
now.--THACKERAY.
It is to you whom I address a history which may perhaps fall into very
different hands.--SCOTT.
‘To you that’, or ‘you to whom’.
It is not taste that is plentiful, but courage that is
rare.--STEVENSON.
Again a common blunder; not, however, a confusion between the two
constructions above, but between one of them (the relative) and a
third. The sentence explains why every one seems to prefer Shakespeare
to Ouida (they are afraid to say that they like Ouida best). ‘What is
the explanation of this?’ ‘It is not the plentifulness of taste, but
the rarity of courage, that explains it.’ Or, less clumsily, using the
construction that Stevenson doubtless intended: ‘It (the inference to
be drawn) is not that taste is plentiful, but that courage is rare.’
PARTICIPLE AND GERUND
It is advisable to make a few remarks on the participle and gerund
together before taking them separately. As the word _gerund_ is
variously used, we first define it. A gerund is the verbal noun
identical in form with any participle, simple or compound, that
contains the termination _-ing_. Thus the verb _write_ has the active
participles _writing_, _having written_, _being about to write_,
_about to write_, and the passive participles _written_, _having been
written_, _being written_, _about to be written_, _being about to
be written_. Any of these except _written_, _about to write_, _about
to be written_, may be a gerund also; but while the participle is
an adjective, the gerund is a noun, differing from other nouns in
retaining its power (if the active gerund of a transitive verb) of
directly governing another noun.
Both these are of great importance for our purpose. The participle
itself, even when confusion with the other cannot occur, is much
abused; and the slovenly uses of it that were good enough in Burke’s
time are now recognized solecisms. Again, the identity between the two
forms leads to loose and unaccountable gerund constructions that will
probably be swept away, as so many other laxities have been, with the
advance of grammatical consciousness. We shall have to deal with both
these points at some length.
It is indeed no wonder that the forms in _-ing_ should require close
attention. Exactly how many old English terminations _-ing_ is heir
to is a question debated by historical grammarians, which we are not
competent to answer. But we may point out that _writing_ may now be (1)
participle--I was writing; I saw him writing; writing piously, he acts
profanely--, (2) gerund or full verbal noun--I object to your writing
that--, (3) hybrid between gerund and participle--I do not mind you
writing it--, (4) detached verbal noun--Writing is an acquired art--,
(5) concrete noun--This writing is illegible. Moreover, the verbal noun
_writing_ has the synonym _to write_, obligatory instead of it in some
connexions, better in some, worse in some, and impossible in others;
compare, for instance: I do not like the trouble of writing; I shall
not take the trouble to write; the trouble of writing is too much for
him; it is a trouble to write; writing is a trouble. The grammatical
difficulties, that is, are complicated by considerations of idiom.
In these preliminary remarks, however, it is only with the distinction
or want of distinction between participle and gerund that we are
concerned. The participle is an adjective, and should be in agreement
with a noun or pronoun; the gerund is a noun, of which it should be
possible to say clearly whether, and why, it is in the subjective,
objective, or possessive case, as we can of other nouns. That the
distinction is often obscured, partly in consequence of the history of
the language, will be clear from one or two facts and examples.
1. _The man is building_ contains what we should all now call, whether
it is so or not historically, a participle or verbal adjective: _the
house is building_ (older but still living and correct English for
_the house is being built_) contains, as its remarkable difference of
meaning prepares us to believe, a gerund or verbal noun, once governed
by a now lost preposition.
2. In _He stopped, laughing_ we have a participle; in _He stopped
laughing_, a verbal noun governed directly by the verb; in _He burst
out laughing_, a verbal noun governed by a vanished preposition.
3. Present usage does not bear out the definite modern ideas of the
distinction between participle and gerund as respectively adjective
and noun. So long as that usage continues, there are various degrees
of ambiguity, illustrated by the three following examples. It would
be impossible to say, whatever the context, whether the writer of the
first intended a gerund or a participle. In the second, a previous
sentence would probably have decided the question. In the third, though
grammar (again as modified by present usage) leaves the question open,
the meaning of the sentence is practically decisive by itself.
Can he conceive _Matthew Arnold permitting_ such a book to be written
and published about himself?--_Times._
And no doubt that end will be secured by _the Commission sitting_ in
Paris.--_Times._
Those who know least of them [the virtues] know very well how much
they are concerned in _other people having_ them.--MORLEY.
In the second of these, if _sitting_ is a participle, the meaning is
that the end will be secured by the Commission, which is described by
way of identification as the one sitting in Paris. If _sitting_ is
gerund, the end will be secured by the wise choice of Paris and not
another place for its scene. If _Commission’s_ were written, there
could be no doubt the latter was the meaning. With _Commission_, there
is, by present usage, absolutely no means of deciding between the two
meanings apart from possible light in the context. In the third, common
sense is able to tell us, though grammar gives the question up, that
what is interesting is not the other people who have them, but the
question whether other people have them.
We shall, in the section on the gerund, take up the decided position
that all gerunds ought to be made distinguishable from participles. We
are quite aware, however, that in the first place a language does not
remodel itself to suit the grammarian’s fancy for neat classification;
that secondly the confusion is not merely wanton or ignorant, but the
result of natural development; that thirdly the change involves some
inconveniences, especially to hurried and careless writers. On the
other hand it is certain that the permanent tendency in language is
towards the correct and logical, not from it; it is merely hoped that
the considerable number of instances here collected may attract the
attention of some writers who have not been aware of the question,
and perhaps convince them that the distinction is a useful one,
that a writer ought to know and let us know whether he is using a
participle or a gerund, and that to abandon the gerund when it cannot
be distinguished without clumsiness need cause no difficulty to any but
the very unskilful in handling words.
PARTICIPLES
The unattached or wrongly attached participle is one of the blunders
most common with illiterate or careless writers. But there are degrees
of heinousness in the offence; our examples are arranged from 1. to 8.
in these degrees, starting with perfect innocence.
1. Participles that have passed into prepositions, conjunctions, or
members of adverbial phrases.
_Considering_ the circumstances, _you_ may go.
_Seeing_ that it was involuntary, _he_ can hardly be blamed.
Roughly _speaking_, all _men_ are liars.
_Looking_ at it in a shortened perspective of time, those _years_ of
transition have the quality of a single consecutive occurrence.--H. G.
WELLS.
The _Bill_ ... will bring about, _assuming_ that it meets with good
fortune in the remaining stages of its passage through Parliament, a
very useful reform.--_Times._
Regarded as participles, these are incorrect. It is not _you_ that
consider, but I; not _he_ that sees, but we; not _men_ that roughly
speak, but the moralist; not _years_ that look, but philosophic
historians; not _the Bill_ that assumes, but the newspaper prophet.
The development into prepositions, &c., is a natural one, however; the
only question about any particular word of the kind is whether the vox
populi has yet declared for it; when it has, there is no more to be
said; but when it has not, the process should be resisted as long as
possible, writers acting as a suspensive House of Lords; an instance
will be found in 4.
Three quotations from Burke will show that he, like others of his time,
felt himself more at liberty than most good writers would now feel
themselves.
_Founding_ the appeal on this basis, _it was judged_ proper to lay
before Parliament....--BURKE.
_Flattering_ themselves that their power is become necessary to the
support of all order and government, _everything_ which tends to the
support of that power _is sanctified_.--BURKE.
_Having considered_ terror as producing an unnatural tension and
certain violent emotions of the nerves; _it_ easily _follows_.--BURKE.
Similar constructions may be found on almost every page of Smollett.
2. Participles half justified by attachment to a pronoun implied in
_my_, _your_, _his_, _their_. These are perhaps better avoided.
_Having_ thus _run_ through the causes of the sublime with reference
to all the senses, _my_ first observation will be found very nearly
true.--BURKE.
_Being_ much _interested_ in the correspondence bearing on the
question ‘Do we believe?’, the first difficulty arising in _my_ mind
is....--_Daily Telegraph._
_My_ farm consisted of about twenty acres of excellent land, _having
given_ a hundred pounds for my predecessor’s good will.--GOLDSMITH.
3. Mere unattached participles for which nothing can be said, except
that they are sometimes inoffensive if the word to be supplied is very
vague.
_Doubling_ the point, and _running_ along the southern shore of the
little peninsula, the scene changes.--F. M. CRAWFORD.
The most trying ... period was this one of enforced idleness _waiting_
for the day of entry.--_Times._
_Having acquired_ so many tropical colonies there is the undoubted
duty attached to such possession of....--_Times._
4. Participles that may some day become prepositions, &c.
Sir--_Referring_ to your correspondent’s (the Bishop of Croydon’s)
letter in to-day’s issue, _he_ quotes at the close of it the following
passage.--_Daily Telegraph._
_He_ must be the Bishop; for the immediately preceding _Sir_, marking
the beginning of the letter, shows that no one else has been mentioned;
but if we had given the sentence without this indication, no one
could possibly have believed that this was so; _referring_ is not yet
unparticipled.
5. An unwary writer sometimes attaches a participle to the subject of
a previous sentence, assuming that it will be the subject of the new
sentence also, and then finds (or rather is not awake enough to find)
himself mistaken. This is a trap into which good writers sometimes
fall, and so dangerous to bad writers that we shall give many examples.
It is important for the tiro to realize that he has not satisfied the
elementary requirements of grammar until he has attached the participle
to a noun in the same sentence as itself, not in another. He must also
remember that, for instance, _I went and he came_, though often spoken
of loosely as a sentence, is in fact as fully two sentences as if each
half of it were ten lines long, and the two were parted by a full stop
and not connected by a conjunction.
_They_ had now reached the airy dwelling where Mrs. Macshake
resided, and _having rung, the door_ was at length most deliberately
opened.--S. FERRIER.
_The lovers_ sought a shelter, and, mutually _charmed_ with each
other, _time_ flew for a while on downy pinions.--S. FERRIER.
A molecular _change_ is propagated to the muscles by which the body is
retracted, and _causing_ them to contract, _the act_ of retraction is
brought about.--HUXLEY.
_Joseph_, as they supposed, by tampering with Will, got all my
secrets, and was acquainted with all my motions--; and _having_ also
_undertaken_ to watch all those of his young lady, the wise _family_
were secure.--RICHARDSON.
_Miss Pinkerton_ ... in vain ... tried to overawe her. _Attempting_
once to scold her in public, _Rebecca_ hit upon the ... plan of
answering her in French, which quite routed the old woman.--THACKERAY.
But _he_ thought it derogatory to a brave knight passively to await
the assault, and _ordering_ his own men to charge, the hostile
_squadrons_, rapidly advancing against each other, met midway on the
plain.--PRESCOTT.
Alvarado, roused by the noise of the attack on this quarter, hastened
to the support of his officer, when _Almagro_, seizing the occasion,
pushed across the bridge, dispersed the small body left to defend it,
and, _falling_ on Alvarado’s rear, _that general_ saw himself hemmed
in on all sides.--PRESCOTT.
_Murtagh_, without a word of reply, went to the door, and _shouting_
into the passage something in Irish, _the room_ was instantly filled
with bog-trotters.--BORROW.
But, as before, _Anne_ once more made me smart, and _having equipped_
herself in a gown and bonnet of mine--not of the newest--off _we_
set.--CROCKETT.
At this I was silent for a little, and then _I_ resolved to speak
plainly to Anne. But not _being_ ready with my words, _she_ got in
first.--CROCKETT.
For many years _I_ had to contend with much opposition in the nature
of scepticism; but _having had_ hundreds of successful cases and
proofs _it_ has become such an established fact in the eastern
counties that many landowners, &c., would not think of sinking a well
without first seeking the aid of a water diviner.--_Times._
6. A more obvious trap, and consequently less fatal, is a change from
the active construction that may have been intended to a passive,
without corresponding alterations. If the writers of the next two had
used _we must admit_ instead of _it must be admitted_, _a policy that
they put forward_, instead of _a policy put forward_, the participles
_hesitating_ and _believing_ would have had owners.
While _hesitating_ to accept this terrible indictment of French
infancy, _it must be admitted_ that French literature in all its
strength and wealth is a grown-up literature.--_Spectator._
He and those with whom he acted were responsible for the policy
promulgated--_a policy_ put forward in all seriousness and honesty
_believing_ it to be essential to the obtaining of the better
government of Ireland.--_Times._
7. Participles that seem to belong to a noun, but do not.
Letters on the constant stopping of omnibuses, thus _causing_
considerable suffering to the horses.
Does _causing_ agree with _letters_? Then the letters annoy the horses.
With _stopping_? Then stopping causes suffering by stopping (_thus_).
With _omnibuses_? The horses possibly blame those innocents, but we
can hardly suppose a human being, even the writer of the sentence, so
illogical. The word _thus_, however, is often considered to have a kind
of dispensing power, freeing its participle from all obligations; so:
The Prince was, by the special command of his Majesty the Emperor,
made the guardian of H.I.H. the Crown Prince, _thus necessitating_ the
Prince’s constant presence in the capital of Japan.--_Times._
A very wealthy man can never be sure even of friendship,--while the
highest, strongest and noblest kind of love is nearly always denied to
him, in this way _carrying out_ the fulfilment of those strange but
true words:--‘How hardly shall he that is a rich man enter the Kingdom
of Heaven!’--CORELLI.
It is not _love_ that carries out, but the power that denies love,
which is not mentioned.
8. Really bad unattached or wrongly attached participles. The reader
will generally find no difficulty in seeing what has led to the
blunder, and if he will take the trouble to do this, will be less
likely to make similar blunders himself.
And then _stooping_ to take up the key to let _myself_ into the
garden, _he_ started and looked as if he heard somebody near the
door.--RICHARDSON.
Sir--With reference to this question ‘Do we believe?’, while
_recognizing_ the vastness of the subject, its modern aspect has some
definite features.--_Daily Telegraph._
_Taken_ in conjunction with the splendid white and brown trout-fishing
of the Rosses lakes and rivers, anglers have now the opportunity of
fishing one of the best, if not the best, fishery to be obtained in
Ireland.--ADVT.
Sir--_Having read_ with much interest the letters re ‘Believe only’
now appearing in the _Daily Telegraph_, perhaps some of your readers
might be interested to know the following texts which have led some
great men to ‘believe only’.--_Daily Telegraph._
_Being pushed_ unceremoniously to one side--which was precisely what I
wished--he usurped my place.--C. BRONTË.
The higher forms of speech acquire a secondary strength from
association. _Having_, in actual life, habitually _heard_ them in
connexion with mental impressions, and _having been accustomed_ to
meet with them in the most powerful writing, they come to have in
themselves a species of force.--SPENCER.
_Standing_ over one of the sluices of the Aswan dam last January, not
only was the vibration evident to the senses....--_Times._
The following passage may be commended for use in examination
papers. ‘Always _beloved_ by the Imperial couple who are to-day the
Sovereign lord and lady of Great Britain, their Majesties have, on
many occasions since the Devonshire houses rejoiced in a mistress once
more, honoured them by visits extending over some days.’--_Times._
The last, as the _Times_ reviewer has noticed, will repay analysis in
several ways.
=9. The absolute construction= is not much to be recommended, having
generally an alien air in English; but it is sometimes useful. It must
be observed, first, that the case used should now invariably be the
subjective, though it was otherwise in old English. Secondly, it is
very seldom advisable to make an absolute construction and insert a
pronoun for the purpose when the participle might simply be attached
in ordinary agreement to a noun already to hand. Thirdly, it is very
bad to use the construction, but omit to give the participle a noun
or pronoun to itself. These three transgressions will be illustrated,
in the same order, by the next three examples. But many of the wrong
sentences in 5 above may be regarded as absolute constructions with
the subject omitted.
I, with whom that Impulse was the most intractable, the most
capricious, the most maddening of masters (_him_ before me always
excepted)....--C. BRONTË.
‘Special’ is a much overworked word, _it_ being loosely used to mean
great in degree, also peculiar in kind.--R. G. WHITE.
This is said now because, _having been said_ before, I have been
judged as if I had made the pretensions which were then and which are
now again disclaimed.--R. G. WHITE.
THE GERUND
There are three questions to be considered: whether a writer ought to
let us know that he is using a gerund and not a participle; when a
gerund may be used without its subject’s being expressed; when a gerund
with preposition is to be preferred to the infinitive.
=1. Is the gerund to be made recognizable?= And, in the circumstances
that make it possible, that is, when its subject is expressed, is this
to be done sometimes, or always?
It is done by putting what we call for shortness’ sake the subject of
the gerund (i. e., the word _me_ or _my_ in _me doing_ or _my doing_)
in the possessive instead of in the objective or subjective case.
Take the typical sentence: I dislike my best friend(’s) violating my
privacy. It cannot be a true account of the matter to say that _friend_
is the object of _I dislike_, and has a participle _violating_ attached
to it. For (a) we can substitute _resent_, which never takes a personal
object, for _dislike_, without changing the sense. (b) If we substitute
a passive construction, also without changing the sense, we find that
_dislike_ has quite a different object--_privacy_.--I dislike my
privacy being violated by my friend. (c) Many of us would be willing to
adopt the sentiment conveyed who yet would not admit for a moment that
they disliked their best friend even when he intruded; they condemn the
sin, but not the sinner.
_Violating_ then is not an ordinary participle. It does not follow
yet that it is a gerund. It may be an extraordinary participle, fused
into one notion with the noun, so that _a friend violating_ means
_the-violation-by-a-friend_. The Latin scholar here at once puts in
the idiom of _occisus Caesar_, which does not generally mean _Caesar
after he was killed_, as it naturally should, but the killing of
Caesar, or the fact that Caesar had been killed. The parallel is close
(though the use is practically confined to the passive in Latin), and
familiar to all who know any Latin at all. But it shows not so much
what the English construction is as how educated people have been
able to reconcile themselves to an ambiguous and not very reasonable
idiom--not very reasonable, that is, after language has thrown off its
early limitations, and got over the first difficulty of accomplishing
abstract expression of any kind. The sort of fusion assumed is
further illustrated for the Latinist, though not so closely, by the
Latin accusative and infinitive. This theory then takes _violating_
for a participle fused into one notion with _friend_. There are two
difficulties.
I. The construction in English is, though in the nature of things not
as common, yet as easy in the passive as in the active. Now the passive
of _violating_ is either _violated_ or _being violated_. It is quite
natural to say, Privacy violated once is no longer inviolable. Why then
should it be most unnatural to say, The worst of privacy violated once
is that it is no longer inviolable? No one, not purposely seeking the
unusual for some reason or other, would omit _being_ before _violated_
in the second. Yet as participles _violated_ and _being violated_ are
equally good--not indeed always, but in this context, as the simpler
Privacy sentence shows. The only difference between the two participles
(except that in brevity, which tells against _being violated_) is that
the longer form can also be the gerund, and the shorter cannot. The
almost invariable choice of it is due to the instinctive feeling that
what we are using is or ought to be the gerund. A more convincing
instance than this mere adaptation of our original example may be added:
Many years ago I became impressed with the necessity for _our infantry
being taught and practised_ in the skilful use of their rifle.--LORD
ROBERTS.
_The necessity for our infantry taught and practised_ is absolutely
impossible. But why, _if being_ taught is participle, and not gerund?
II. Assuming that the fused-participle theory is satisfactory and
recognized, whence comes the general, though not universal impression
among those who, without being well versed in grammar, are habitually
careful how they speak and write, that constructions like the following
are ignorant vulgarisms?--It is no use he (his) doing it; it is no use
him (his) doing it; that need not prevent us (our) believing; excuse
me (my) interrupting you; a thing (thing’s) existing does not prove
that it ought to exist; I was annoyed by Tom (Tom’s) hesitating; the
Tsar (Tsar’s) leaving Russia is significant; it failed through the King
(King’s) refusing his signature; without us (our) hearing the man, the
facts cannot be got at; without the man (man’s) telling us himself, we
can never know. With a single exception for one (not both) of the first
two, none of these ought to cause a moment’s uneasiness to any one who
was consciously or unconsciously in the fused-participle frame of mind;
and if they do cause uneasiness it shows that that frame of mind is not
effectively present.
The Fused-Participle Theory, having no sufficient answer to these
objections, but seeing that the gerund’s case is also weak, naturally
tries a counter-attack:--If on the other hand the gerund theory is
satisfactory and recognized, how is it conceivable that people should
leave out the possessive _’s_ in the reckless way they do? To which,
however, the Gerund makes reply:--I regret that they do leave it out,
but at least we can see how they come to; it is the combined result of
a mistake and an inconvenience. The mistake is caused by certain types
of sentence in which a real, not a fused participle is so used that the
noun and its (unfused) participle give a sense hardly distinguishable
from a possessive noun and a gerund. Examples are:
This plan has now been abandoned owing to _circumstances requiring_
the convocation of representatives of the people at the earliest
possible moment.--_Times._
... by imposing as great difficulty as possible on _parents and
publicans using_ child messengers.--_Times._
Of course no obstacles should be put in the way of _charitable people
providing_ free or other meals if they think fit.--_Times._
The notion of _the Czar being addressed_ in such terms by the
nobility of his capital would have been regarded as an absolute
impossibility.--_Spectator._
There is of course a difference. For instance, in the example about
the Czar, as in a previous one about _conceiving Matthew Arnold
permitting_, the participle has a pictorial effect; it invites us to
imagine the physical appearance of these two great men under indignity
instead of merely thinking of the abstract indignity, as we should
have done if _Czar’s_ and _Arnold’s_ had shown that we had a gerund;
but the difference is very fine; the possessive sign might be inserted
without practical effect in all these four, and in hundreds like them.
And unlearned people may be excused for deducing that the subject of
the gerund can be used at pleasure without the possessive sign, while
the learned comfort themselves with the fused-participle theory. That
is the mistake. The inconvenience is this: it is easy enough to use the
possessive adjectives (_my_, &c.), and to add the possessive sign to
most names and many single nouns; but the subject of a gerund is often
a long phrase, after which the sign is intolerable. So the mistake
(that the gerund may have a subject not marked by the possessive)
is eagerly applied to obviating the inconvenience (that long gerund
subjects must be avoided). And that is why people drop their possessive
_’s_, and why you, the Fused Participle, flourish, defrauding both
me, the Gerund, and the honest participle. Thus answered, the Fused
Participle does not continue the argument, but pleads only that there
is room for all three forms.
Before giving some examples to help in the decision, we shall summarize
our own opinion. (1) It is not a matter to be decided by appeal
to historical grammar. All three constructions may have separate
legitimate descents, and yet in the interests of clear thought and
expression it may be better for one of them to be abandoned. (2) There
are two opposite tendencies at present: among careful writers, to
avoid the fused participle (this, being negative, can naturally not
be illustrated) and to put possessive signs in slightly uncomfortable
places by way of compensation; among slovenly writers, to throw off
all limits of length for the subject of the fused participle. (3) Long
fused-participle phrases are a variety of abstract expression, and
as such to be deprecated. Among the resources of civilization is the
power of choosing between different ways of saying the same thing; and
literary skill is very much a matter of exercising that power; a writer
should recognize that if he cannot get round an ugly fused participle
there is still much for him to learn. (4) Opportunities for ambiguity
are so abundant in English, owing to the number of words whose parsing
depends on context, that all aids to precision are valuable; and it
is not too much to expect a writer to know and let us know whether he
means a participle or a gerund.
_a._ That the possessive of all pronouns that have the form should be
used instead of the objective or subjective is hardly disputed. Correct
accordingly:
You may rely upon _me_ doing all in my power.--SIR W. HARCOURT.
The confounded fetterlock clapped on my movements by old Griffiths
prevents _me_ repairing to England in person.--SCOTT.
But when it comes to _us_ following his life and example....--_Daily
Telegraph._
Nothing can prevent _it_ being the main issue at the General
Election.--_Spectator._
One of them, if you will pardon _me_ reminding you, is that no
discussion is to pass between us.--E. F. BENSON.
Frederick had already accepted the crown, lest James should object to
_him_ doing so.--_Times._
... notwithstanding the fact that their suspicions of ease-loving,
ear-tickling parsons prevent _them_ supporting the commercial churches
of our time.--_Daily Telegraph._
_b._ Examples in which the possessive of nouns might be written without
a qualm.
Nearly a week passed over without _Mr. Fairford_ hearing a word
directly from his son.--SCOTT.
Mrs. Downe Wright had not forgiven the indignity of _her son_ having
been refused by Mary.--S. FERRIER.
In no other religion is there a thought of _man_ being saved by grace
and not by merit.--_Daily Telegraph._
And it is said that, on _a visitor_ once asking to see his library,
Descartes led him....--HUXLEY.
It is true that one of our objects was to prevent[10] _children_
‘sipping’ the liquor they were sent for.--_Times._
Orders were sometimes issued to prohibit[1a] _soldiers_ buying and
eating cucumbers.--_Times._
Renewed efforts at a settlement in 1891 failed through the
_Swedish Government_ leading off with a flippant and offensive
suggestion.--NANSEN.
Hurried reading results in _the learner_ forgetting half of what he
reads, or in _his_ forming vague conceptions.--SWEET.
_c._ All the last set involved what were either actual or virtual names
of persons; there is more difficulty with abstract nouns, compound
subjects, and words of which the possessive is ugly. Those that may
perhaps bear the possessive mark will be put first, and alterations
suggested for the others.
We look forward to _much attention_ being given.--_Times._
He affirmed that such increases were the rule in that city on _the
change_ being made.--_Times._
I live in hopes of _this discussion_ resulting in some modification
in our form of belief.--_Daily Telegraph._ (that this discussion may
result)
The real objection to the possessive here is merely the addition to the
crowd of sibilants.
In the event of _the passage_ being found, he will esteem it a favour
... (if the passage is found)
Conceive my vexation at being told by Papa this morning that he had
not the least objection to _Edward and me_ marrying whenever we
pleased.--S. FERRIER. (our)
Or, if the names are essential, _did not in the least mind how soon
Edward and I married_.
It has been replied to the absurd taunt about _the French_ inventing
nothing, that at least Descartes invented German philosophy.--MORLEY.
(Frenchmen’s)
_d._ A modern construction called the compound possessive was mentioned
at the end of the section on Cases. It is sometimes ugly, sometimes
inoffensive; that is a matter of degree and of knowing where to draw
the line; there is no objection to it in principle. And the application
of it will sometimes help out a gerund. The first quotation gives a
compound possessive simply; the second, a gerund construction to which
it ought to be applicable; the third and fourth, two to which it can be
applied; and the last, one to which it cannot.
A protestation, read at Edinburgh, was followed, on _Archibald
Johnston of Warriston’s_ suggestion, by....--J. R. GREEN.
The retirement of Judge Stonor was made the subject of special
reference yesterday on the occasion of _Sir W. L. Selfe, his
successor_, taking his seat in Marylebone County Court.--_Times._
The mere fact of _such a premier_ being endured shows....--BAGEHOT.
There is no possibility of _the dissolution of the legislative union_
becoming a vital question.--_Spectator._
If some means could be devised for ... insisting upon _many English
guardians of the poor_ making themselves more acquainted....--_Times._
The only objection to a possessive mark after _successor_ is that
the two commas cannot be dispensed with; we must say _when ...
took_ for _on the occasion of ... taking_. _Such a premier’s_ will
certainly pass. In the _Spectator_ sentence, we should ourselves
allow _union’s_; opinions will differ. But to put the _’s_ after
_poor_ in the last sentence would be ridiculous; that sentence must be
rewritten--insisting that many English guardians of the poor should
make--or else _poor-law Guardians’_ must be used.
_e._ Sometimes we can get over the difficulty without abandoning the
gerund, by some slight change of order.
This incentive can only be supplied by _the nation itself_ taking the
matter up seriously.--LORD ROBERTS.
If _itself’s_ is objected to, omit _itself_ (or shift it to the end),
and write _nation’s_.
_f._ But many types of sentence remain that will have to be completely
changed if the gerund is to be recognizable. It will be admitted about
most of our examples that the change is not to be regretted. The
subject of the gerund is italicized in each, to emphasize its length.
We have to account for _the collision of two great fleets, so equal in
material strength that the issue was thought doubtful by many careful
statisticians_, ending in the total destruction of one of them and
in the immunity of the other from damage greater than might well be
incurred in a mere skirmish.--_Times._
For _account for ... ending_ write _ascertain why ... ended_. The
sentence is radically bad, because the essential construction seems
complete at _collision_--a false scent. That, which is one of the worst
literary sins, is the frequent result of long fused participles. It is
quite practically possible here for readers to have supposed that they
were going to be told why the fleets met, and not why the meeting ended
as it did. In the remaining sentences, we shall say when there is false
scent, but leave the reader to examine it.
The success of the negotiations depends on _the Russian Minister at
Tokio_ being allowed to convince Japan that....--_Times._
The compound possessive--Tokio’s--is tempting, but perhaps overbold.
Insert _whether_ after _depends on_, and write _is_ for _being_.
So far from _this_ being the case, the policy ... was actually decided
upon before ... the question ... was raised.--_Times._
Omit _being the case_.
We are not without tokens of _an openness for this higher truth also,
of a keen though uncultivated sense for it_, having existed in
Burns.--CARLYLE.
For the first _of_ write _that_, omit the second _of_, and omit
_having_. False scent.
There is no apparent evidence of _an early peace_ being necessitated
by the pecuniary exigencies of the Russian Government.--SIR HOWARD
VINCENT.
For _of ... being_ write _that ... will be_, if _peace’s_ cannot be
endured.
The general effect of his words was to show the absurdity of _the
Secretary of State for War, and our military authorities generally_,
denouncing the Militia as useless or redundant.--_Spectator._
For _the absurdity of ... denouncing_ write _how absurd it was for ...
to denounce_. False scent, though less deceptive.
Apparently his mission was decided upon without _that of the British
and Spanish Ministers_ having been taken into account, or, at all
events, without their having been sufficiently reckoned with.--_Times._
Without regard (at all events without sufficient regard) to that of....
... capital seeking employment in foreign protected countries, in
consequence of _manufacturing business in many branches in which it
might be employed at home_ being rendered unprofitable by our system
of free trade.--LORD GOSCHEN.
For _in consequence of ... being_ write _because ... has been_. Bad
false scent again.
So far from _the relief given to agriculture by the State paying
one-half of the rates_ being inequitable, it is but a bare act of
justice.--_Spectator._
Observe the fused participle within fused participle here; and read
thus: So far from its being inequitable that the state should relieve,
&c.
After these specimens, chosen not as exceptional ones, but merely as
not admitting of simple correction by insertion of the possessive mark,
the reader will perhaps agree that the long gerund subject--or rather
noun phrase of the fused participle--is a monstrosity, the abolition of
which would be a relief to him, and good discipline for the writer.
Two sentences are added to show the chaotic state of present practice.
Noticing the bold use of the strict gerund in the first, we conclude
that the author is a sound gerundite, faithful in spite of all
temptations; but a few pages later comes the needless relapse into
fused participle.
I remember old _Colney’s_ once, in old days, _calling_ that kind of
marriage a sarcophagus.--MEREDITH.
She had thought in her heart that _Mr. Barmby espousing_ the girl
would smoothe a troubled prospect.--MEREDITH.
The following looks like a deliberate avoidance of both constructions
by a writer who is undecided between the two. _Its being_ is what
should have been written.
I do not say that the advice is not sound, or complain that it is
given. I do deprecate _that it should be_ taken.--_Times._
And perhaps a shyness of _something’s being shown_ accounts for the
next odd arrangement; it is true that entire recasting is what is
called for.
_There being shown to be something_ radically defective in the
management of the Bank _led_ to the appointment of a Committee.--H. D.
MACLEOD.
=2. When must the subject of the gerund (or infinitive) be expressed,
and when omitted?=
This is not a controversial matter like the last; the principles are
quite simple, and will be accepted; but it is necessary to state and
illustrate them because they are often forgotten. As the same mistakes
are sometimes made with the infinitive, that is to be considered as
included.
Roughly, the subject of the gerund (or infinitive) should be expressed
if it is different from, and omitted if it is the same as, the subject
of the sentence. To omit it when different is positively wrong, and may
produce actual ambiguity or worse, though sometimes there is only a
slipshod effect; to insert it when the same is generally clumsy.
No one would say ‘I succeeded to his property upon dying’, because, _I_
being the subject of the sentence, _my_ is naturally suggested instead
of the necessary _his_ as subject of the gerund; the _his_ must be
inserted before _dying_, even though the nature of the case obviates
ambiguity. To take an instance that will show both sides, the following
is correct:
I shut the door and stood with my back to it. Then, instead of _his
philandering_ with Bess, I, Clementina MacTaggart, had some plain
speech with John Barnaby.--CROCKETT.
Subject of the sentence, I; subject of the gerund, he; they are
different; therefore the _he_ must be expressed, in the shape of
_his_. Now rewrite the main sentence as--John Barnaby heard some plain
speech from me, Clementina MacTaggart. The sense is the same; but the
_his_ before _philandering_ at once becomes superfluous; it is not
yet seriously in the way, because we do not know what is the subject
of _philandering_, the name only coming later. Now rewrite it again
as--Then John Barnaby heard some plain speech from ... instead of ...
The _his_ is now so clumsy as to be almost impossible.
The insertion of superfluous subjects is much less common than the
omission of necessary ones; but three examples follow. The first is a
rare and precious variety; the second has no apparent justification;
for the third it may be said that the unusual _his_ has the same effect
as the insertion of the parenthetic words _as he actually does_ after
_limiting_ would have had.
You took food to him, but instead of _he reaching_ out his hand and
taking it, he kept asking for food.--_Daily Telegraph._
Harsh facts: sure as she was of _her_ never _losing_ her filial hold
of the beloved.--MEREDITH.
I have said that Mr. Chamberlain has no warrant for _his limiting_ the
phrase ... to the competitive manufacture of goods.--LORD GOSCHEN.
In giving the rule summarily, we used the phrase _subject of the
sentence_. That phrase is not to be confined to the subject of the main
sentence, but to be referred instead, when necessary, to the subject of
the subordinate clause in which the gerund may stand. For instance:
The good, the illuminated, sit apart from the rest, censuring their
dullness and vices, as if they thought that, _by sitting_ very grand
in their chairs, the very brokers, attorneys, and congressmen would
see the error of their ways, and flock to them.--EMERSON.
Here _by sitting_ breaks the rule, though the subject of _sitting_
is the same as that of the main verb _sit_, because the subject of
the clause in which _sitting_ comes is not _the good_, but _brokers,
&c._ The right way to mend this is not to insert _their_ before
_sitting_--which after all is clumsy, though correct--but to make _the
good_ the subject of the clause also, by writing _as if they thought
that by sitting ... they would make the brokers ... see the error_.
And sometimes _subject of the sentence_ is to be interpreted still more
freely as the word grammatically dominant in the part of the sentence
that contains the gerund. For instance:
From the Bible alone was she taught the duties of morality, but
familiarized to her taste _by hearing_ its stories and precepts from
the lips she best loved.--S. FERRIER.
Here the dominant word is _Bible_, to which _familiarized_ belongs. So,
though _she_ does happen to be the main subject, _her_ must be inserted
because the _familiarized_ phrase removes the gerund from the reach of
the main subject.
After these explanations we add miscellaneous instances. It will be
seen that transgression of the rule, though it seldom makes a sentence
ambiguous enough to deceive, easily makes it ambiguous enough to amuse
the reader at wrong moments, or gives an impression of amateurish work.
Mistakes are mended, sometimes by inserting the subject of the gerund
(or infinitive), sometimes by changing the main subject to make it the
same as that of the gerund, sometimes by other recasting.
... an excellent arrangement for a breeching, which, when released,
remains with the carriage, so that lead or centre horses can be put in
the wheel _without having_ to affix a new breeching.--_Times._
Lucky, reflects the reader, since horses are not good at affixing
breechings. Write _the drivers can put ... horses ... without having to
affix_.
I cultivated a passionless and cold exterior, for I discovered that
_by assuming_ such a character, certain otherwise crafty persons
would talk more readily before me.--CORELLI.
Write _if I assumed_; or else _I should induce certain ... persons
to talk_. It will be noticed that the mistake here, and often, is
analogous to the most frequent form of wrongly attached participle
(participle, 5); the writer does not observe that he has practically
passed from the sphere of the sentence whose subject was the word that
he still allows to operate.
_After following_ a country Church of England clergyman for a period
of half a century, a newly-appointed, youthful vicar, totally
unacquainted with rural life, comes into the parish, and at once
commences to alter the services of the Church, believed in by the
parishioners for generations.--_Daily Telegraph._
Grammar gives _his_, i. e., the new vicar’s, as subject of _following_;
it is really either _my_ or _the parishioners’_. Insert _my_ or _our_,
or write _After we (I) have followed_.
I am sensible that _by conniving_ at it it will take too deep root
ever to be eradicated.--_Times._
Insert _our_, or write _if connived at_.
This was experienced by certain sensitive temperaments, either by
sensations which produced shivering, or _by seeing_ at night a
peculiar light in the air.--_Times._
Who or what sees? Certainly not _this_, the main subject. Not even
_temperaments_, which have no eyes. Write _Persons of sensitive
temperament experienced this, &c._
But the commercial interests of both Great Britain and the United
States were too closely affected by the terms of the Russo-Chinese
agreement _to let_ it pass unnoticed.--_Times._
It is not the interests that cannot let it pass, but the countries.
Insert _for those countries_ before _to let_; or write _Both Great
Britain and the United States were too closely affected in their
interests to let...._
And it would be well for all concerned, for motor drivers and the
public alike, if this were made law, instead of _fixing_ a maximum
speed.--_Times._
Write _if the law required this...._
And _in order to bring_ her to a right understanding, she underwent a
system of persecution.--S. FERRIER.
Write _they subjected her to_ for _she underwent_.
Her friendship is too precious to me, not _to doubt_ my own merits on
the one hand, and not to be anxious for the preservation of it on the
other.--RICHARDSON.
Write _I value her friendship too highly not to...._
One cannot do good to a man whose mouth has been gagged _in order not
to hear_ what he desires for his welfare.--_Times._
Grammar suggests that his mouth--or, if indulgent, that he--is not to
hear; but the person meant is _one_. Write _one has gagged_ for _has
been gagged_.
Germany has, alas! victories enough _not to add_ one of the kind which
would have been implied in the retirement of M. Delcassé.--_Times._
It is France, not Germany, that should not add. Write _without France’s
adding_.
_In order to obtain_ peace, ordinary battles followed by ordinary
victories and ordinary results will only lead to a useless
prolongation of the struggle.--_Times._
This is a triumph of inconsequence. Write _If peace is the object, it
should be remembered that ordinary...._
It will have occurred to the reader that, while most of the sentences
quoted are to be condemned, objection to a few of them might be called
pedantic. The fact is that every writer probably breaks the rule
often, and escapes notice, other people’s, his own, or both. Different
readers, however, will be critical in different degrees; and whoever
breaks the rule does so at his own risk; if his offence is noticed,
that is hanging evidence against him by itself; if it is not noticed,
it is not an offence. Of saying on page 127 _Mistakes are mended
sometimes by inserting the subject_, we plead Guilty if we were caught
in the act, but otherwise Not Guilty.
=3. Choice between the gerund with preposition and the infinitive.=
It was said in the preliminary section on the Participle and Gerund
that _writing_--the verbal noun or gerund--and _to write_--the
infinitive--are in some sense synonyms; but phrases were given showing
that it is by no means always indifferent which of the two is used. It
is a matter of idiom rather than of grammar; but this seems the most
convenient place for drawing attention to it. To give satisfactory
rules would require many more examples and much more space than can
be afforded. But something will be gained if students are convinced
(1) that many of the mistakes made give sentences the appearance of
having been written by a foreigner or one who is not at home with the
literary language; (2) that the mistakes are nearly always on one side,
the infinitive being the form that should only be used with caution;
(3) that a slight change in arrangement may require a change from
infinitive to gerund or vice versa.
_a._ When the infinitive or gerund is attached to a noun, defining
or answering the question _what_ (hope, &c.) about it, it is almost
always better to use the gerund with of; not quite always, however; for
instance, _an intention to return_, usually, and _a tendency to think_
always.
The vain _hope to be understood_ by everybody possessed of a ballot
makes us in the United States perhaps guiltier than public men in
Great Britain in the use of that monstrous muddled dichotomy ‘capital
and labour’.--_Times._
What hope?--That of being understood. Write it so, and treat all the
following similarly:
The habitual _necessity to amass_ [of amassing] matter for the weekly
sermon, set him noting...--MEREDITH.
We wish to be among the first to felicitate Mr. Whitelaw Reid upon
his _opportunity to exercise_ [of exercising] again the distinguished
talents which...--_Times._
Men lie twenty times in as many hours in the _hope to propitiate_ [of
propitiating] you.--CORELLI.
We left the mound in the twilight, with the _design to return_ [of
returning] the next morning.--EMERSON.
The main duties of government were omitted--the _duty to instruct_ [of
instructing] the ignorant, _to supply_ [of supplying] the poor with
work and good guidance.--EMERSON.
Mr. Hay’s _purpose to preserve or restore_ [of preserving or
restoring] the integrity of the administrative entity of China has
never been abandoned.--_Times._
My _custom to be dressed_ [of being dressed] for the day, as
soon as breakfast is over, ... will make such a step less
suspected.--RICHARDSON.
He points out that if Russia accepted the agreement, she would not
attain her _object to clear_ [of clearing] the situation, inasmuch
as....--_Times._
What accounts for these mistakes is the analogy of forms like: Our
design was to return; it is a duty to instruct; man has power to
interpret (but _the_ power of interpreting); it is my custom to be
dressed.
When, however, the noun thus defined is more or less closely fused into
a single idea with the verb that governs it, the infinitive becomes
legitimate, though seldom necessary.
The menace to have secreted Solmes, and that other, that I _had
thoughts to run away_ with her foolish brother, ... so much terrified
the dear creature....--RICHARDSON.
I passed my childhood here, and _had a weakness here to close_ my
life.--BEACONSFIELD.
Before ten o’clock in the evening, Gasca _had the satisfaction to see_
the bridge so well secured that....--PRESCOTT.
Almagro’s followers _made as little scruple to appropriate_ to their
own use such horses and arms as they could find.--PRESCOTT.
_Had thoughts_ means _was planning_; _had a weakness_ means _desired_;
_had the satisfaction_, _was pleased_; _made as little scruple_,
_scrupled as little_.
Again, an interval between the noun defined and the infinitive or
gerund makes the former more tolerable.
_The necessity_ which has confronted the Tokio War Office, _to
enlarge_ their views of the requirements of the situation.--_Times._
Or the infinitive is used to avoid a multiplication of _of_.
He had as much as any man ever had that _gift_ of a great preacher _to
make_ the oratorical fervour which persuades himself while it lasts
into the abiding conviction of his hearers.--LOWELL.
The pastures of Tartary were still remembered by the tenacious
_practice_ of the Norsemen _to eat_ horseflesh at religious
feasts.--EMERSON.
If the noun has the indefinite article the infinitive is better
sometimes.
But our recognition of it implies a corresponding _duty to make_ the
most of such advantages.--_Times._
_A_ duty to make: _the_ duty of making. Compare _power_ and _the power_
above.
The following is probably an adaptation (not to be commended) of _it is
necessary for Russia to secure_--_for Russia to secure_ being regarded
as a fused infinitive like the Latin accusative and infinitive.
His views on the _necessity_ for Russia _to secure_ the command of the
sea....--_Times._
_b._ Though the gerund with _of_ is the usual construction after nouns,
they sometimes prefer the gerund with other prepositions also to the
infinitive. The gerund with _in_ should be used, for instance, in the
following. But euphony operates again in the first.
... the extraordinary _remissness_ of the English commanders _to
utilize_ their preponderating strength against the Boers.--_Times._
Lord Kenyon reminded the House of the resistance met with to
vaccination, to [of?] the possible _effect_ of the proposal _to
increase_ that resistance....--_Times._
I think sculpture and painting have an _effect to teach_ us manners
and abolish hurry.--EMERSON.
Such a capitulation would be inconsistent with the position of any
Great Power, independently of the _humiliation_ there would be for
England and France _to submit_ their agreement for approval and
perhaps modification to Germany.--_Times._
The humiliation there would be in submitting; or the humiliation it
would be to submit.
_c._ After verbs and adjectives the infinitive is much more common; but
no one will use a gerund where an infinitive is required, while many
will do the reverse.
But history _accords_ with the Japanese practice _to show_ [in
showing] that....--_Times._
We must necessarily appeal to the intuition, and _aim_ much
more _to suggest_ than _to describe_ [at suggesting than at
describing].--EMERSON.
But they can only highly serve us, when they _aim_ not _to drill_, but
_to create_ [at drilling, but at creating].--EMERSON.
So far from _aiming to be_ mistress of Europe, she was rapidly sinking
into the almost helpless prey of France.--J. R. GREEN.
This is to avoid _aiming at be_ing; compare the avoidance of double
_of_ above.
_Lose no time_, I pray you, _to advise_.--RICHARDSON.
_In advising_ may have been avoided as ambiguous.
Egotism has its root in the cardinal necessity by which each
individual _persists to be_ [in being] what he is.--EMERSON.
I do not _despair to see_ [of seeing] a motor public
service.--_Guernsey Advertiser._
Their journeymen are far too declamatory, and too much _addicted to
substitute_ [substituting] vague and puerile dissertations for solid
instruction.--MORLEY.
In the common phrase _addicted to drink_, drink is a noun, not a verb.
His blackguard countrymen, always _averse_, as their descendants
are, _to give_ [giving] credit to anybody, for any valuable
quality.--BORROW.
Is he _to be blamed_, if he thinks a person would make a wife worth
having, _to endeavour_ [for endeavouring] to obtain her?--RICHARDSON.
_d._ If a deferred subject, anticipated by _it_, is to be verbal, it
must of course be either the infinitive or a gerund without preposition.
Fortune, who has generally been ready to gratify my inclinations,
provided _it_ cost her very little _by so doing_....--BORROW.
SHALL AND WILL
It is unfortunate that the idiomatic use, while it comes by nature to
southern Englishmen (who will find most of this section superfluous),
is so complicated that those who are not to the manner born can hardly
acquire it; and for them the section is in danger of being useless. In
apology for the length of these remarks it must be said that the short
and simple directions often given are worse than useless. The observant
reader soon loses faith in them from their constant failure to take him
right; and the unobservant is the victim of false security.
Roughly speaking, _should_ follows the same rules as _shall_, and
_would_ as _will_; in what follows, Sh. may be taken as an abbreviation
for _shall_, _should_, and _should have_, and W. for _will_, _would_,
and _would have_.
In our usage of the Sh. and W. forms, as seen in principal sentences,
there are elements belonging to three systems. The first of these, in
which each form retains its full original meaning, and the two are
not used to give different persons of the same tense, we shall call
the pure system: the other two, both hybrids, will be called, one the
coloured-future, the other the plain-future system. In Old English
there was no separate future; present and future were one. _Shall_
and _will_ were the presents of two verbs, to which belong also the
pasts _should_ and _would_, the conditionals _should_ and _would_, and
the past conditionals _should have_ and _would have_. _Shall_ had the
meaning of command or obligation, and _will_ of wish. But as commands
and wishes are concerned mainly with the future, it was natural that
a future tense auxiliary should be developed out of these two verbs.
The coloured future results from the application to future time of
those forms that were practically useful in the pure system; they
consequently retain in the coloured future, with some modifications,
the ideas of command and wish proper to the original verbs. The plain
future results from the taking of those forms that were practically
out of work in the pure system to make what had not before existed,
a simple future tense; these have accordingly not retained the ideas
of command and wish. Which were the practically useful and which the
superfluous forms in the pure system must now be explained.
_Thou shall not steal_ is the type of _shall_ in the pure system. We
do not ordinarily issue commands to ourselves; consequently _I shall_
is hardly required; but we often ask for orders, and therefore _shall
I?_ is required. The form of the _shall_ present in the pure system is
accordingly:
Shall I? You shall. He shall. Shall we? They shall.
As to the past tense, orders cannot be given, but may be asked about,
so that, for instance, _What should I do?_ (i. e., What was I to do?)
can be done all through interrogatively.
In the conditionals, both statement and question can be done all
through. I can give orders to my imaginary, though not to my actual
self. I cannot say (as a command) _I shall do it_; but I can say, as a
conditional command, _I should do it_.
_I shall_ and _we shall_ are accordingly the superfluous forms of the
present _shall_ in the pure system.
Again, with _will_, _I will_ meaning _it is my will_, it is obvious
that we can generally state this only of ourselves; we do not know the
inside of other people’s minds, but we can ask about it. The present
runs, then,
I will. Will you? Will he? We will. Will they?
The past tense can here be done all through, both positively and
interrogatively. For though we cannot tell other people’s present will,
we can often infer their past will from their actions. So (I was asked,
but) _I would not_, and _Why would I do it?_ all through. And similarly
in the conditionals, _I would not_ (if I could), &c.
The spare forms supplied by the present _will_, then, are _you will_,
_he will_, _they will_; and these, with _I shall_, _we shall_, are
ready, when the simple future is required, to construct it out of. We
can now give
Rule 1. The Pure System
When Sh. and W. retain the full original meanings of command and wish,
each of them is used in all three persons, so far as it is required.
The following examples show most of what we inherit directly from the
pure system.
Thou shalt not steal. Not required in first person.
Shall I open the door? Not required in second.
You should not say such things. In all persons.
And shall Trelawny die? Hardly required in second.
Whom should he meet but Jones? (... was it his fate....) In all.
Why should you suspect me? In all.
It should seem so. (It would apparently be incumbent on us to believe)
Isolated idiom with third.
I will have my way. Not required in second and third; but see below.
I (he) asked him (me) to do it, but he (I) would not. In all.
I would not have done it for the world. In all.
I would be told to wait a while (Habitual). In all.
Will you come with me? Not required in first.
I would I were dead. Not required in second and third.
He will bite his nails, whatever I say. In all.
He will often stand on his head. In all.
You will still be talking (i. e., you always are). Not required in
first.
A coat will last two years with care.
It will be noticed that the last four forms are among those that were
omitted as not required by the pure system. _Will_ would rarely be
required in second and third person statements, but would of course be
possible in favourable circumstances, as in describing habitual action,
where the will of another may be inferred from past experience. The
last of all is a natural extension of the idiom even to things that
have no will. All these ‘habitual’ uses are quite different from _I
will have my way_; and though _you will have your way_ is possible,
it always has the ‘habitual’ meaning, which _I will have my way_ is
usually without.
All the forms in the above list, and others like them, have three
peculiarities--that they are not practically futures as distinguished
from presents; that they use Sh. for all persons, or W. for all
persons, if the idea is appropriate to all persons; and that the
ideas are simply, or with very little extension, those of command or
obligation and wish.
* * * * *
The coloured-future system is so called because, while the future sense
is more distinct, it is still coloured with the speaker’s mood; command
and wish receive extensions and include promise, permission, menace,
consent, assurance, intention, refusal, offer, &c.; and the forms
used are invariably those--from both Sh. and W.--that we called the
practically useful ones in the pure system. That is, we have always
I will, shall I? You shall, will you? He shall, will he? We will,
shall we? They shall, will they?
And the conditionals, _should_ and _would_, _should have_ and _would
have_, are used with exactly the same variations. It will be borne in
mind, however, that no clear line of division can be drawn between
the pure system and the coloured-future system, since the latter
is developed naturally (whereas the plain-future system is rather
developed artificially) out of the former. And especially the questions
of the coloured future are simply those of the pure system without any
sort of modification.
Rule 2. The Coloured-Future System
In future and conditional statements that include (without the use of
special words for the purpose) an expression of the speaker’s (not
necessarily of the subject’s) wish, intention, menace, assurance,
consent, refusal, promise, offer, permission, command, &c.--in such
sentences the first person has W., the second and third persons Sh.
I will tell you presently. My promise.
You shall repent it before long. My menace.
He shall not have any. My refusal.
We would go if we could. Our conditional intention.
You should do it if we could make you. Our conditional command.
They should have had it if they had asked. My conditional consent.
The only questions possible here are the asking for orders and the
requests already disposed of under Rule 1.
Observe that _I would like_ (which is not English) is not justified by
this rule, because the speaker’s mood is expressed by _like_, and does
not need double expression; it ought to be _I should like_, under Rule
3.
Observe also that _I sha’n’t_, _You will go to your room and stay
there_, are only apparent exceptions, which will be explained under
Rule 3.
The archaic literary forms _You shall find_, _A rogue shall often
pass for an honest man_, though now affected and pretentious, are
grammatically defensible. The speaker asks us to take the fact on his
personal assurance.
The forms little required in the pure system, and therefore ready to
hand for making the new plain future, were _I_, and _we_, _shall_;
_you_, _he_, and _they_, _will_. These accordingly constitute the plain
future, and the corresponding forms of the plain conditional are used
analogously. Questions follow the same rule, with one very important
exception, which will be given a separate rule (4). We now give
Rule 3. The Plain-Future System
In plain statements about the future, and in the principal clause,
result, or apodosis, of plain conditional sentences (whether the
subordinate clause, condition, or _if_-clause, is expressed or not),
the first person has Sh., the second and third persons W. Questions
conform, except those of the second person, for which see Rule 4.
I shall, you will, die some day.
Shall I, will they, be here to-morrow?
We should, he would, have consented if you had asked.
Should we, would he, have missed you if you had been there?
I should, you would, like a bathe.
Should I, would he, like it myself, himself?
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.
I find fault _with_: I find a fault _in_. Write _in_ or _with_, as one
or the other phrase is meant.
The Diet should leave to the Tsar _the initiative of_ taking such
measures as may be necessary.--_Times._
M. Delcassé took _the initiative of_ turning the conversation to
Moroccan affairs.--_Times._
We assume the _right of_ turning, we take the _initiative in_ turning.
Those, who are urging with most ardour what are called the greatest
_benefits_ of mankind.--EMERSON.
Benefits _of_ the benefactor, but _to_ the beneficiary.
A power to marshal and adjust particulars, which can only come from an
_insight of_ [into] their whole connection.--EMERSON.
From its driving energy, its personal weight, its invincible _oblivion
to_ [of] certain things, there sprang up in Redwood’s mind the most
grotesque and strange of images.--H. G. WELLS.
4. Superfluous prepositions, whether due to ignorance of idiom,
negligence, or mistaken zeal for accuracy.
_As to_ Mr. Lovelace’s approbation of your assumption-scheme, I wonder
not _at_.--RICHARDSON.
A something _of_ which the sense can in no way assist the mind to form
a conception _of_.--_Daily Telegraph._
The Congress could occupy itself with no more important question than
_with_ this.--HUXLEY.
This is due to confusion with ‘could occupy itself with no question
more profitably than with this’.
5. Necessary prepositions omitted.
The Lady Henrietta ... _wrote him_ regularly through his bankers, and
once in a while he _wrote her_.--BARONESS VON HUTTEN.
_Write_ without _to_ will now pass in commercial letters only;
elsewhere, we can say ‘I write you a report, a letter’, but neither ‘I
will write you’ simply, nor ‘I wrote you that there was danger’. That
is, we must only omit the _to_ when _you_ not only is the indirect
object, but is unmistakably so at first sight. It may be said that
_I write you_ is good old English. So is _he was a-doing of it_; _I
guess_ is good Chaucerian. But in neither case can the appeal to a dead
usage--dead in polite society, or in England--justify what is a modern
vulgarism.
6. Compound prepositions and conjunctions.
The increasing use of these is much to be regretted. They, and the
love for abstract expression with which they are closely allied, are
responsible for much of what is flaccid, diffuse, and nerveless, in
modern writing. They are generally, no doubt, invented by persons who
want to express a more precise shade of meaning than they can find in
anything already existing; but they are soon caught up by others who
not only do not need the new delicate instrument, but do not understand
it. _Inasmuch_ as, for instance, originally expressed that the truth
of its clause gave the exact measure of the truth that belonged to the
main sentence. So (from the _Oxford Dictionary_):
God is only God inasmuch as he is the Moral Governor of the
world.--SIR W. HAMILTON.
But long before Hamilton’s day the word passed, very naturally, into
the meaning, for which it need never have been invented, of _since_ or
_because_. Consequently most people who need the original idea have
not the courage to use _inasmuch as_ for it, like Sir W. Hamilton,
but resort to new combinations with _far_. Those new combinations,
however, as will be shown, fluctuate and are confused with one another.
The best thing we can now do with _inasmuch_ as is to get it decently
buried; when it means _since_, _since_ is better; when it means what it
once meant, no one understands it. The moral we wish to draw is that
these compounds should be left altogether alone except in passages
where great precision is wanted. Just as a word like _save_ (except)
is ruined for the poet by being used on every page of ordinary prose
(which it disfigures in revenge for its own degradation), so _inasmuch_
as is spoilt for the logician.
We shall first illustrate the absurd prevailing abuse of the compound
preposition _as to_. In each of the following sentences, if _as to_
is simply left out, no difference whatever is made in the meaning.
It is only familiarity with unnecessary circumlocution that makes
such a state of things tolerable to any one with a glimmering of
literary discernment. _As to_ flows from the pen now at every possible
opportunity, till many writers seem quite unaware that such words as
_question_ or _doubt_ can bear the weight of a _whether_-clause without
help from this offensive parasite.
With the idea of endeavouring to ascertain as to this, I
invited....--_Times._
Confronted with the simple question as to in what way other people’s
sisters, wives and daughters differ from theirs....--_Daily Telegraph._
It is not quite clear as to what happened.--_Westminster Gazette._
Doubt is expressed as to whether the fall of Port Arthur will
materially affect the situation.--_Times._
I feel tempted to narrate one that occurred to me, leaving it
to your judgment as to whether it is worthy of notice in your
paper.--_Spectator._
I was entirely indifferent as to the results of the game, caring
nothing at all _as to_ whether I had losses or gains.--CORELLI.
The first _as to_ in this may pass, though plain _to_ is better.
German anticipations with regard to the future are apparently based
upon the question as to how far the Sultan will....--_Times._
But you are dying to know what brings me here, and even if you find
nothing new in it you will perhaps think _it_ makes some difference
_as to_ who says a thing.--GREENWOOD.
This is the worst of all. The subject of _makes_ (anticipated in the
ordinary way by _it_) is _who says a thing_; but the construction
is obscured by the insertion of _as to_. We are forced to suppose,
wrongly, that _it_ means _what brings me here_. Worse than the worst,
however, at least more aggressively wrong, is an instance that we find
while correcting this sheet for the press:
... Although it is open to doubt as to what extent individual saving
through more than one provident institution prevails.--_Westminster
Gazette._
Another objection to the compound prepositions and conjunctions is
that they are frequently confused with one another or miswritten. We
illustrate from two sets. (_a_) The word _view_ is common in the forms
_in view of_, _with a view to_, _with the view of_. The first expresses
external circumstances, existing or likely to occur, that must be taken
into account; as, _In view of these doubts about the next dividend, we
do not recommend_.... The other two both express the object aimed at,
but must not have the correspondence, _a_ view _to_, _the_ view _of_,
upset.
A Resolution was moved and carried _in favour of_ giving facilities
to the public vaccination officers of the Metropolis to enter the
schools of the Board _for the purpose of_ examining the arms of the
children _with a view to_ advising the parents to allow their children
to be vaccinated.--_Spectator._
The Sultan ... will seek to obtain money by contracting loans with
private firms _in view of_ beginning for himself the preliminary
reforms.--_Times._
If Germany has anything to propose _in view of_ the safeguarding
of her own interests, it will certainly meet with that courteous
consideration which is traditional in French diplomacy.--_Times._
Its execution is being carefully prepared _with a view of_ avoiding
any collision with the natives.--_Times._
My company has been approached by several firms _with a view of_
overcoming the difficulty.--_Times._
Of these the first is correct; but the sentence it comes in is so
typical of the compound-prepositional style that no one who reads it
will be surprised that its patrons should sometimes get mixed; how
should people who write like that keep their ideas clear? The second
should have _with a view to_. Still more should the third, which is
ambiguous as well as unidiomatic; the words used ought to mean _seeing
that her interests are safeguarded already_. The fourth and fifth
should again have _with a view to_ (or _with the view of_).
(_b_) The combinations with _far_--_as far as_, _so far as_, _so
far that_, _in so far as_, _in so far that_, of which the last
is certainly, and the last but one probably needless--have some
distinctions and limitations often neglected. For instance, _as far as_
must not be followed by a mere noun except in the literal sense, _as
far as London_. _So far as_ and _so far that_ are distinguished by good
writers in being applied, the first to clauses that contain a doubtful
or varying fact, the other to clauses containing an ascertained or
positive fact. _So far as_ (and _in so far as_), that is, means _to
whatever extent_, and _so far that_ means _to this extent, namely that_.
The question of the Capitulations and of the Mixed Tribunals is not in
any way essentially British, save _in so far as_ the position of Great
Britain in Egypt makes her primarily responsible.--_Times._
Correct; but _except that_ would be much better than _save in so far
as_.
Previous to 1895, when a separate constitution existed for the Bombay
and Madras armies, possibly a military department and a military
member were necessary in order to focus at the seat of government
the general military situation in India, but in the judgment of many
officers well qualified to form an opinion, no such department under
present conditions is really requisite, _in so far as_ the action of
the Commander-in-Chief is thwarted in cases where he should be the
best judge of what is necessary.--_Times._
Entirely wrong. It is confused with _inasmuch as_, and _since_ should
be written.
The officials have done their utmost to enforce neutrality, and
have _in so far_ succeeded _as_ the Baltic fleet keeps outside the
three-mile limit.--_Times._
Should be _so far succeeded that_; we are meant to understand that the
fleet does keep outside, though it does not go right away as might be
wished.
The previous appeal made by M. Delcassé was _so far_ successful _as_
the Tsar himself sent orders to Admiral Rozhdestvensky to comply with
the injunctions of the French colonial authorities.--_Times._
_As_ should be _that_. It is not doubtful to what extent or whether the
Tsar sent. He did send; that is the only point.
They are exceptional in character, _in so far as_ they do not appear
to be modifications of the epidermis.--HUXLEY.
Should probably be _so far exceptional that_. The point is that
there _is_ this amount of the exceptional in them, not that their
irregularity depends on the doubtful fact of their not being
modifications; the word _appear_ ought otherwise to have been
parenthetically arranged.
This influence was _so far_ indirect _in that_ it was greatly
furthered by Le Sage, who borrowed the form of his Spanish
contemporaries.--_Times._
A mixture of _was so far indirect that_ and _was indirect in that_.
He seemed quickly to give up first-hand observation and to be content
to reproduce and re-reproduce his early impressions, always trusting
to his own invention, and the reading public’s inveterate preference
for symmetry and satisfaction, to pull him through. They have
pulled him through _in so far as_ they have made his name popular;
but an artist and a realist--possibly even a humourist--have been
lost.--_Times._
_In so far as_ leaves the popularity and the pulling through doubtful,
which they are clearly not meant to be. It should be _so far that_.
A man can get help from above to do what _as far as_ human possibility
has proved out of his power.--_Daily Telegraph._
This is a whole sentence, not a fragment, as might be supposed. But
_as far as_ (except in the local sense) must have a verb, finite or
infinite. Supply _goes_.
The large majority would reply in the affirmative, _in so far as_ to
admit that there is a God.--_Daily Telegraph._
_So far as to admit_, or _in so far as they would admit_; not the
mixture. And this distinction is perhaps the only justification for the
existence of _in so far as_ by the side of _so far as_; the first is
only conjunction, the second can be preposition as well.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] The reason why many who as a rule use the possessive are willing
to do without it after verbs like _prevent_ is perhaps this: in _I
prevented him going_ they consciously or unconsciously regard both
_him_ and _going_ as nouns, one the indirect, one the direct object, as
in _I refused him leave_.
[11] Dr. Henry Bradley, _The Making of English_, p. 53.
CHAPTER III
AIRS AND GRACES
Certain types of humour--Elegant
variation--Inversion--Archaism--Metaphor--Repetition--Miscellaneous.
Certain Types of Humour
Some of the more obvious devices of humorous writers, being fatally
easy to imitate, tend to outlive their natural term, and to become a
part of the injudicious novice’s stock-in-trade. _Olfactory organ_,
once no doubt an agreeable substitute for ‘nose’, has ceased to
be legal tender in literature, and is felt to mark a low level in
conversation. No amount of classical authority can redeem a phrase that
has once reached this stage. The warmest of George Eliot’s admirers,
called upon to swallow some tough morsel of polysyllabic humour in a
twentieth-century novel, will refuse to be comforted with parallel
passages from _Adam Bede_. Loyalty may smother the ejaculation that
‘George Eliot knew no better’: it is none the less clear to him that we
know better now. A few well-worn types are illustrated below.
a. Polysyllabic humour.
He was a boy whom Mrs. Hackit had pronounced stocky (a word that
etymologically, in all probability, conveys some allusion to an
instrument of punishment for the refractory).--ELIOT.
Tommy was a saucy boy, impervious to all impressions of reverence,
and excessively addicted to humming-tops and marbles, with which
recreative resources he was in the habit of immoderately distending
the pockets of his corduroys.--ELIOT.
No one save an individual not in a condition to distinguish a hawk
from a handsaw....--_Times._
And an observer of Miss Tox’s proceedings might have inferred so much
without declaratory confirmation.--DICKENS.
But it had its little inconveniences at other times, among which
may be enumerated the occasional appearance of the river in the
drawing-room, and the contemporaneous disappearance of the lawn and
shrubbery.--DICKENS.
They might be better employed in composing their quarrels and
preparing a policy than in following the rather lugubrious occupations
indicated by Mr. Asquith.--_Times._
Or perhaps, from a presentiment of calves’ brains, you refrain
from any lacteal addition, and rasp your tongue with unmitigated
bohea.--ELIOT.
The rooks were cawing with many-voiced monotony, apparently--by
a remarkable approximation to human intelligence--finding great
conversational resources in the change of weather.--ELIOT.
I had been terribly shaken by my fall, and had subsequently, owing to
the incision of the surgeon’s lancet, been deprived of much of the
vital fluid.--BORROW.
An elderly man stood near me, and a still more elderly female was
holding a phial of very pungent salts to my olfactory organ.--BORROW.
The minister, honest man, was getting on his boots in the kitchen to
see us home.... Well, this preparation ministerial being finished, we
stepped briskly out.--CROCKETT.
We have ourselves been reminded of the deficiencies of our femoral
habiliments, and exhorted upon that score to fit ourselves more
beseemingly.--SCOTT.
b. Playful repetition.
When she had banged out the tune slowly, she began a different manner
of ‘Gettin’ up Stairs’, and did so with a fury and swiftness quite
incredible. She spun up stairs; she whirled up stairs; she galloped up
stairs; she rattled up stairs.... Then Miss Wirt played the ‘Gettin’
up Stairs’ with the most pathetic and ravishing solemnity.... Miss
Wirt’s hands seemed to faint and wail and die in variations: again,
and she went up with a savage clang and rush of trumpets, as if Miss
Wirt was storming a breach.--THACKERAY.
My mind was, to a certain extent, occupied with the marks on the
teapot; it is true that the mournful idea strove hard with the marks
on the teapot for the mastery in my mind, and at last the painful idea
drove the marks of the teapot out.--BORROW.
The pastrycook is hard at work in the funereal room in Brook Street,
and the very tall young men are busy looking on. One of the very tall
young men already smells of sherry, and his eyes have a tendency to
become fixed in his head, and to stare at objects without seeing them.
The very tall young man is conscious of this failing in himself; and
informs his comrade that it’s his ‘exciseman’. The very tall young man
would say excitement, but his speech is hazy.--DICKENS.
Busy is Mrs. Miff this morning at the church-door, beating and dusting
the altar-cloth, the carpet and the cushions; and much has Mrs. Miff
to say about the wedding they are going to have. Mrs. Miff is told
that the new furniture and alterations in the house cost full five
thousand pound, if they cost a penny; and Mrs. Miff has heard, upon
the best authority, that the lady hasn’t got a sixpence wherewithal to
bless herself. Mrs. Miff remembers, likewise, as if it had happened
yesterday, the first wife’s funeral, and then the christening, and
then the other funeral; and Mrs. Miff says, By-the-bye, she’ll
soap-and-water that ’ere tablet presently, against the company
arrive.--DICKENS.
Mr. Dombey was a grave sight, behind the decanters, in a state of
dignity; and the East India Director was a forlorn sight, near the
unoccupied end of the table, in a state of solitude; and the major
was a military sight, relating stories of the Duke of York to six of
the seven mild men (the ambitious one was utterly quenched); and the
Bank Director was a lowly sight, making a plan of his little attempt
at a pinery, with dessert knives, for a group of admirers; and Cousin
Feenix was a thoughtful sight, as he smoothed his long wristbands and
stealthily adjusted his wig.--DICKENS.
The author is very much at his ease in the last example; the novice
who should yawn in our faces with such engaging candour would render
himself liable to misinterpretation.
c. The well-worn ‘flood-of-tears-and-sedan-chair’ pleasantry.
Phib Cook left her evening wash-tub and appeared at her door in
soap-suds, a bonnet-poke, and general dampness.--ELIOT.
Sir Charles, of course, rescues her from the clutches of the Italian,
and they return together in triumph and a motor-car.--_Times._
Miss Nipper ... shook her head and a tin-canister, and began unasked
to make the tea.--DICKENS.
And for the rest it is not hard to be a stoic in eight-syllable metre
and a travelling-carriage.--LOWELL.
But what the bare-legged men were doing baffled conjecture and the
best glasses.--E. F. BENSON.
d. Other worn-out phrases of humorous tendency.
For, tell it not in Gath, the Bishop had arrived on a bicycle.--D.
SLADEN.
Tell it not in Smith-st., but....--_Guernsey Evening Press._
Sleeping the sleep of the just.
The gallant sons of Mars.--_Times._
Mr. Mackenzie, with a white hat ... and long brown leather gaiters
buttoned upon his nether anatomy.--LOCKHART.
Looking for all the world like....--D. SLADEN.
Too funny for words.
These two phrases are commonly employed to carry off a humorous
description of which the success is doubted. They are equivalents,
in light literature, of the encouragement sometimes offered by the
story-teller whose joke from _Punch_ has fallen flat: ‘You should have
seen the illustration’. _Worthy_ and _gallant_ are similarly used:
To hear the worthy and gallant Major resume his favourite topic is
like law-business, or a person who has a suit in Chancery going
on.--HAZLITT.
_Home._--I would implore God to survey with an eye of mercy their
unoffending bairns. _Hume._--And would not you be disposed to behold
them with an eye _of the same materials_?--LANDOR.
Two or three haggard, ragged drawers ran to and fro.... Guided by one
of these blinking _Ganymedes_, they entered....--SCOTT.
The ancient _Hebe_ who acted as Lord Glenvarloch’s cup-bearer took his
part against the intrusion of the still more antiquated _Ganymede_,
and insisted on old Trapbois leaving the room instantly.--SCOTT.
It may be doubted whether any resemblance or contrast, however
striking, can make it worth a modern writer’s while to call waiters
Ganymedes, waitresses Hebes, postmen Mercuries, cabmen Automedons or
Jehus. In Scott’s time, possibly, these phrases had still an agreeable
novelty: they are now so hackneyed as to have fallen into the hands of
writers who are not quite certain who Ganymede and Hebe were. Thus,
there are persons who evidently think that it is rather complimentary
to one’s host than otherwise to call him an Amphitryon; and others who
are fond of using the phrase ‘l’Amphitryon où l’on dîne’ altogether
without point, apparently under the impression that ‘où l’on dîne’ is
an alternative version for the use of the uninitiated (‘Amphitryon’,
that is to say, ‘one’s host’).
Japan, says M. Balet, can always borrow money so long as she can
provide two things--guarantees and victories. She has guarantees
enough and victories _galore_.--_Times._
The English people has insisted on its preference for a married
clergy, and Dr. Ingram’s successor may have ‘arrows in the hand of a
giant’.--_Times._
The inverted commas seem to implore the reader’s acceptance of this
very battered ornament. One could forgive it more easily, if there were
the slightest occasion for its appearance here.
The only change ever known in his outward man was....--DICKENS.
Rob the Grinder, thus transformed as to his outer man....--DICKENS.
One hundred parishioners and friends partaking of tea.--_Guernsey
Advertiser._
But that’s another story.--KIPLING.
But that is ‘another story’.--_Times._
It was all that Anne could do to keep from braining him with the poker
for daring to call her ‘Little One’,--and Anne’s arm is no joke when
she hits to hurt. Once John Barnaby--but the tale of John Barnaby can
wait.--CROCKETT.
Nevertheless, some folk like it so, and even now the Captain, when his
pipe draws well and his grog is to his liking, says--But there is no
use in bringing the Captain into the story.--CROCKETT.
The notion that Mr. Kipling, left to himself, is not competent to bring
out all the latent possibilities of this phrase is a mistaken one, and
argues an imperfect acquaintance with his works.
Many heads in England, I find, are shaken doubtfully over the
politics, or what are thought to be the politics, of Australia.
They--the politics, not the heads--are tangled, they are
unsatisfactory in a high degree.--W. H. FITCHETT.
ELEGANT VARIATION
We include under this head all substitutions of one word for another
for the sake of variety, and some miscellaneous examples will be found
at the end of the section. But we are chiefly concerned with what may
be called pronominal variation, in which the word avoided is either a
noun or its obvious pronoun substitute. The use of pronouns is itself
a form of variation, designed to avoid ungainly repetition; and we
are only going one step further when, instead of either the original
noun or the pronoun, we use some new equivalent. ‘Mr. Gladstone’,
for instance, having already become ‘he,’ presently appears as ‘that
statesman’. Variation of this kind is often necessary in practice; so
often, that it should never be admitted except when it is necessary.
Many writers of the present day abound in types of variation that are
not justified by expediency, and have consequently the air of cheap
ornament. It is impossible to lay down hard and fast rules, but two
general principles may be suggested: (1) Variation should take place
only when there is some awkwardness, such as ambiguity or noticeable
monotony, in the word avoided. (2) The substitute should be of a purely
pronominal character, a substitute and nothing more; there should be no
killing of two birds with one stone. Even when these two requirements
are satisfied, the variation is often worse, because more noticeable,
than the monotony it is designed to avoid.
The examples in our first group do not offend against (2): how far
they offend against (1), and how far they are objectionable on other
grounds, we shall consider in detail.
Mr. Wolff, the well-known mining engineer, yesterday paid a visit to
the scene of the disaster. _The expert_ gave it as his opinion that no
blame attached....
_The expert_ is gratuitous: _He_ would have done quite well.
None the less Mrs. Scott [Sir Walter’s mother] was a motherly
comfortable woman, with much tenderness of heart, and a well stored,
vivid memory. Sir Walter, writing of her, after _his mother’s_ death,
to Lady Louisa Stewart, says....--HUTTON.
_His mother’s_ is not only unnecessary, but misleading: there is a
difficulty in realizing that _her_ and _his mother_, so placed, can be
meant to refer to the same person.
Mr. J. Hays Hammond, a friend of President Roosevelt, lecturing before
the American Political Science Association, quoted a recent utterance
of the President of the Japanese House of Peers. _That dignitary_
said: ....--_Spectator._
_That dignitary said_ might have been omitted, with the full stop
before it.
Mr. Sidney Lee’s study of the Elizabethan Sonnets, the late Mr.
Charles Elton’s book on Shakespeare’s Family and Friends, and
Professor Bradley’s on Shakespearean Tragedy--a work which may
be instructively read with Professor Campbell’s ‘Tragic Drama in
Aeschylus, Sophocles and Shakespeare’--remind us that _the dramatist_
still holds his own with the publishers. The last two or three weeks
have seen two new editions of him.--_Times._
The writer has thoroughly puzzled himself. He cannot call Shakespeare
Shakespeare, because there is a Shakespeare just before: he cannot call
him _he_, because six other persons in the sentence have claims upon
_he_: and he ought not to call him _the dramatist_, because Aeschylus
and Sophocles were dramatists too. We know, of course, which dramatist
is meant, just as we should have known which _he_ was meant; but the
appropriation is awkward in either case. _The dramatist_ is no doubt
the best thing under the circumstances; but when matters are brought
to such a pass that we can neither call a man by his own name, nor use
a pronoun, nor identify him by means of his profession, it is time to
remodel the sentence.
If Mr. Chamberlain has been injured by the fact that till now Mr.
Balfour has clung to him, Mr. Balfour has been equally injured by the
fact that Mr. Chamberlain has persistently locked his arm in _that of
the Prime Minister_.--_Spectator._
Elegant variation is the last thing we should expect here. For what
is the writer’s principal object? Clearly, to emphasize the idea of
reciprocity by the repetition of names, and by their arrangement. Mr.
Chamberlain, Mr. Balfour: Mr. Balfour, Mr. Chamberlain. It is easy
enough, so far: ‘If Mr. Chamberlain has been injured by the persistent
attachment of Mr. Balfour, Mr. Balfour has been equally injured by
that of Mr. Chamberlain’. But that is not all that is required: there
is to be the graphic touch; arm is to be locked in arm. Now comes the
difficulty: in whose arm are we to lock Mr. Chamberlain’s? in ‘his’?
in ‘_his_’? in ‘his own’? in ‘Mr. Balfour’s’? in ‘that of the Prime
Minister’? As the locking of arms is perhaps after all only an elegant
variation for clinging, remodelling seems again to be the best way out
of the difficulty. Perhaps our simplified form above might serve.
On Thursday evening last, as a horse and cart were standing at Mr.
Brown’s shop, the animal bolted.
‘The horse’.--An unconscious satirist, of tender years but ripe
discernment, parsed ‘animal’ in this sentence as a personal pronoun;
‘it replaced the subject of the sentence’. Journalists (it was
explained to her) are equipped with many more personal pronouns than
ever get into the grammars.
_The King_ yesterday morning made a close inspection of the Cruiser
Drake at Portsmouth, and afterwards made a tour of the harbour on
board the Admiral’s launch. _His Majesty_ then landed and drove
to Southsea, where he inspected the Royal Garrison Artillery at
Clarence Barracks. _The King_ returned to London in the course of the
afternoon.--_Times._
This is, no doubt, a difficult case. The royal pronoun (His Majesty)
does not lend itself to repetition: on the other hand, it is felt that
_he_s, if indulged in at all, must be kept a respectful distance apart;
hence _The King_ in the third sentence. We can get rid of it by reading
‘... at Clarence Barracks; returning ...’. But of course that solution
would not always be possible.
_The Emperor_ received yesterday and to-day General Baron von Beck....
It may therefore be assumed with some confidence that the terms of
a feasible solution are maturing themselves in _His Majesty’s_ mind
and may form the basis of further negotiations with Hungarian party
leaders when _the Monarch_ goes again to Budapest.--_Times._
If _the Emperor of Austria_ should disappear from the scene, war,
according to this authority, is to be feared, as _the Emperor Francis
Joseph_ alone controls....--_Times._
There is no excuse either for _the Monarch_ or for the _Emperor Francis
Joseph_. ‘He’ could scarcely have been misinterpreted even in the
latter sentence.
_Sir Charles Edward Bernard_ had a long and distinguished career in
the Indian Civil Service.... Five years later _Sir Charles Bernard_
was appointed Commissioner of Nagpur.... In 1876 _Sir Edward Bernard_
returned to Nagpur.--_Times._
It is natural that _Sir Charles Edward Bernard_ should be introduced
to us under his full name; natural, also, that an abbreviation should
be chosen for working purposes. But why two abbreviations? If _Sir
Charles_ and _he_ are judiciously employed, they will last out to the
end of the longest article, without any assistance from _Sir Edward_.
Among the instances here given, there is scarcely one in which
variation might not have been avoided with a little trouble. There are
some, indeed, in which it is not gratuitous; and if in these the effect
upon the reader were as negative as the writer’s intention, there would
be nothing to complain of. But it is not; the artistic concealment
of art is invariably wanting. These elephantine shifts distract our
attention from the matter in hand; we cannot follow His Majesty’s
movements, for wondering what the King will be called next time; will
it be plain Edward VII? or will something be done, perhaps, with ‘the
Emperor of India’? When the choice lies between monotonous repetition
on the one hand and clumsy variation on the other, it may fairly be
laid down that of two undesirable alternatives the natural is to be
preferred to the artificial.
But variation of this kind is, at the worst, less offensive than
that which, in violation of our second principle above, is employed
as a medium for the conveyance of sprightly allusion, mild humour or
(commonest of all) parenthetic information.
When people looked at his head, they felt he ought to have been a
giant, but he was far from _rivalling the children of Anak_.--H. CAINE.
‘Far from it’, in fact.
He never fuddled himself with rum-and-water in his son’s presence, and
only talked to his servants in a very reserved and polite manner; and
_those persons_ remarked....--THACKERAY.
‘What made ye sae late?’ said Mr. Jarvie, as I entered the
dining-parlour of _that honest gentleman_.--SCOTT.
The parlour was Mr. Jarvie’s.
At the sixth round, there were almost as many _fellows shouting
out_ ‘Go it, Figs’, as there were _youths exclaiming_ ‘Go it,
Cuff’.--THACKERAY.
Great advances in the education of women ... are likely, perhaps, to
find more congenial soil in Universities less bound by time-honoured
traditions and by social conventions than Oxford or Cambridge.
Whatever may be the case _by Isis or Cam_, ....--_Times._
Our representative yesterday ran down to Brighton to interview the
Cambridge Captain. _The weight-putter and high-jumper_ received him
with his usual cordiality.
This is a favourite newspaper type.
The miscellaneous examples given below (except ‘the former of the last
two’) are connected with pronominal variation only so far as they
illustrate the same principle of false elegance.
... hardly calculated to impress _at this juncture_ more than _upon
any former occasion_ the audience....--_Times._
His mother _possessed_ a good development of benevolence, but he
_owned_ a better and larger.--C. BRONTË.
In the subjoined official record of ‘business done’, transactions
_marked_ thus * relate to small bonds, those _signalized_ thus †
to small bonds free of stamp and fee, and those _distinguished_
thus + to an exceptional amount at special rates. Stocks and shares
marked thus †† have paid no dividend for the last two half-years and
upwards.--_Times._
The return to _marked_ is humiliating; we would respectfully suggest
_characterized_.
One might be more intelligible in such moods if one wrote in
_waving lines_, and accordingly the question ‘Why do you not
ask Alfred Tennyson to your home?’ is written in _undulating
script_.--_Spectator._
Eighty-three volumes are _required for_ letter “M,” seventy-seven are
_demanded by_ “L,” and seventy-six are perforce _conceded to_ “B”; but
_the former of the last two_....--_Westminster Gazette._
I must _ask_ the reader to _use_ the same twofold procedure that I
before _requested_ him to _employ_ in considering....--H. SIDGWICK.
We have not room to record at length, from the _Westminster Gazette_,
the elegant variety of fortune that attended certain pictures, which
(within twenty lines) made, fetched, changed hands for, went for,
produced, elicited, drew, fell at, accounted for, realized, and were
knocked down for, various sums.
INVERSION
Of all the types of inversion used by modern writers, there is perhaps
not one that could not be shown to exist in older English. Ordinary
modern usage, however, has retained those forms only in which ancient
authority combines with practical convenience; and not all of those.
To set aside the verdict of time in this respect is to be archaic.
Before using inversion, therefore, the novice should ask himself two
questions: is there any solid, practical reason (ornamental reasons
will not do) for tampering with the normal order of subject and verb?
and does the inversion sound natural?
Throughout this section it must be borne in mind that in all questions
of right and wrong inversion the final appeal is not to history, but
to the reader’s perception: what sounds right to most modern ears is
right for modern purposes. When, under balance inversion, we speak of
a true and a false principle, we do not mean to imply that the ‘true’
principle was, historically, the origin of this kind of inversion, or
that the ‘false’ is a mistaken analogy from it: all that is meant is
that if we examine a collection of instances, those that sound natural
will prove to be based upon the ‘true’ principle, and those that do not
on the ‘false’.
=a. Exclamatory inversion.=
This may be regarded as an abbreviated form of exclamation, as if
the word ‘How’ had dropped out at the beginning, and a note of
exclamation at the end. The inverted order, which is normal in the
complete exclamation, sounds natural also in the abbreviated form. The
requirements for this kind of inversion are these: (1) The intention
must be genuinely exclamatory, so that the full form of exclamation
could be substituted without extravagance. (2) The word placed first
must be that which would bear the chief emphasis in the uninverted
form. It should be observed that this is the only kind of inversion in
which the emphatic word, as such, stands at the beginning.
Our first three examples satisfy these conditions, and are
unobjectionable. The fourth does not: we could not substitute ‘With
what difficulty...!’; nor are the first words emphatic; the emphasis
is on ‘conceive’. Yet the inversion is inoffensive, being in fact not
exclamatory at all, but a licensed extension of negative inversion,
which is treated below.
Bitterly did I regret the perverse, superstitious folly that had
induced me to neglect so obvious a precaution.
But in these later times, with so many disillusions, with fresh
problems confronting science as it advances, rare must be the spirit
of faith with which Haeckel regards his work.--_Times._
Gladly would he now have consented to the terms....
With difficulty can I conceive of a mental condition in which....
Exclamatory inversion, like everything else that is exclamatory, should
of course be used sparingly.
=b. Balance inversion.=
The following are familiar and legitimate types:
First on our list stands the question of local option.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
To this cause may be attributed....
Among the guests were A, B, C, ... Z.
We give the name of ‘balance’ to this kind of inversion because,
although the writer, in inverting the sentence, may not be distinctly
conscious of rectifying its balance, the fact that it was ill-balanced
before is the true cause of inversion. It is a mistake to say that the
words placed first in the above examples are so placed for the sake
of emphasis; that is a very common impression, and is responsible for
many unlawful inversions. It is not emphasis that is given to these
words, it is protection; they are placed there to protect them from
being virtually annihilated, as they would have been if left at the
end. Look at the last of our examples: how can we call the words ‘Among
the guests were’ emphatic, or say that they were placed there for
emphasis? They are essential words, they show the connexion, nor could
the sentence be a sentence without them; but they are as unemphatic as
words could well be.--Why, then (it may be asked), are they put at the
beginning? is not this an emphatic position? and does not any unusual
position give emphasis?--No: it gives not emphasis but prominence,
which is another thing.
Put the sentence back into its original form, and we shall see why
inversion was desirable. ‘A, B, C, D, E, F ... Z were among the
guests.’ Observe how miserably the sentence tails off; it has no
balance. By inverting it, we introduce several improvements. First, we
give prominence to the unemphatic predicate, and enable it to discharge
its humble office, that of a sign-post, indicating the connexion with
what has gone before. Secondly, by giving prominence to the predicate,
we give balance to the sentence, which before was top-heavy. Thirdly,
we give prominence to the subject, by placing it in an unusual position.
Next take the ‘local option’ sentence. Are the words ‘First on our
list’ emphatic? Not if the inverter knows his business. How did it run
originally? ‘The question of local option stands first on our list.’
These words might be meant to tell us either of two things: what stood
first on the list, or where local option stood. If the inversion is
right, they are meant to tell us what stood first. If the other had
been meant, then ‘First on the list’ would have been emphatic, and the
writer would have left it in its place; but as it is not emphatic, and
the other words are, the sentence is top-heavy; he therefore inverts
it, thus balancing the sentence, and placing the unemphatic words in
a prominent position, where they continue to be unemphatic, but are
sure to be noticed. In spoken language, the relative importance of the
different parts of a sentence can be indicated merely by the inflexion
of the voice; but the balance of the sentence is best maintained, even
then, by means of inversion.
It is the same with the other examples. If we restore the St. Matthew
quotation to the uninverted form, again we have an answer to either of
two questions: What is the basis of the law? and What is the importance
of these two commandments? Obviously it is meant as an answer to
the latter, and therefore the words that convey that answer are the
emphatic words; the others are not emphatic, but merely essential to
the connexion; the general importance of the ‘two commandments’,
as forming the subject-matter of the whole context, does not in the
slightest degree affect their relation to the other words in this
particular sentence.
It follows from what has been said that true balance inversion is
employed not for the sake of impressiveness, but with the purely
negative object of avoiding a bad balance. The data required for its
justification are (i) An emphatic subject, carrying in itself the point
of the sentence, (ii) Unemphatic ‘sign-post’ words, essential to the
connexion, standing originally at the end of the sentence, and there
felt to be inadequately placed. The results of the inversion must be
(iii) That the sign-post stands at the beginning, (iv) That the subject
stands absolutely at the end.
When these four conditions are fulfilled, the inversion, far from being
objectionable, may tend greatly to vigour and lucidity. It is liable,
of course, to be overdone, but there are several ways of avoiding
that: sometimes it is possible to place the sign-post at the beginning
without inversion; or the uninverted sentence may be reconstructed, so
that the subject no longer carries the emphasis; and, as often as not,
a sentence of which the accentuation is theoretically doubtful may in
practice be left to the reader’s discernment.
One occasional limitation remains to be mentioned, before we proceed
to instances. It applies to those sentences only that have a compound
verb: if the compound verb cannot be represented simply by its
auxiliary component, the inversion may have to be abandoned, on account
of the clumsiness of compound verbs in the middle of an inverted
sentence, for to carry the other component to the end would be to
violate our fourth rule. Take the type sentence ‘To these causes may
be attributed ...’, and first let the subject be ‘our disasters’. The
clumsiness of the verb is then distinctly felt; and ‘To these causes
may our disasters be attributed’ is ugly enough to show the importance
of the rule it violates. But next let the subject be ‘every one of
the disasters that have come upon us’. This time the inversion is
satisfactory; whence we conclude that if the verb is compound, the
subject must be long as well as emphatic, or the inversion will not do.
On the answer to this question depends entirely every decision
concerning the goodness or badness of conduct.--SPENCER.
Just as, after contact, some molecules of a mass of food are absorbed
by the part touched, and excite the act of prehension, so are absorbed
such of its molecules as, spreading through the water, reach the
organism.--SPENCER.
These are both formed on the right principle, but the second suffers
from the awkwardness of the auxiliary.
Still more when considered in the concrete than when considered in
the abstract do the views of Hobbes and his disciples prove to be
inconsistent.--SPENCER.
Here we have neither the data that justify balance inversion, nor the
results that should follow from it. It is due to the false principle
of ‘emphasis’ dealt with below in d. and reads as awkwardly as such
inversions usually read. The sentence is, no doubt, cumbrous in the
uninverted form; but it wants reconstruction, not inversion.
Much deeper down than the history of the human race must we go to find
the beginnings of these connections.--SPENCER.
Wrong again, for the same reasons, but not with the same excuse; for
the original form is unobjectionable. The emphasis is not on the
problem (_to find_ ...), but on the clue to it (_much deeper down_),
which, being emphatic, can maintain its position at the end of the
sentence. The compound verb is only a secondary objection: we do not
mend matters much by substituting _lie_ for _must we go to find_.
You say he is selfish. Well, so is every one.
You say he is selfish. Well, so is every one selfish.
_So is every one_ is a correct inversion: _so_ is too weak to stand at
the end, and at the beginning it is a good enough sign-post to tell us
that selfishness is going to be defended. But _so is every one selfish_
is wrong: for if _selfish_ is repeated at all, it is repeated with
rhetorical effect, and is strong enough to take care of itself. Our
second rule is thus violated; and so is our fourth--the subject does
not come at the end.
All three methods had their charm. So may have Mr. Yeats’s notion
of....--_Times._
This time, the compound verb is fatal. ‘So, perhaps, has ...’ would do.
The arrival of the Hartmanns created no little excitement in the
Falconet family, both among the sons and the daughters. Especially was
there no lack of speculation as to the character and appearance of
Miss Hartmann.--BEACONSFIELD.
Right or wrong in principle, this does not read comfortably; but that
may seem to be due to the cumbrous phrase ‘was there no lack of’, which
for practical purposes is a compound verb. That difficulty we can
remove without disturbing the accentuation of the sentence: ‘Especially
numerous were the speculations as to the character of Miss Hartmann’.
This resembles in form our old type ‘Among the guests were ...’, but
with the important difference that ‘especially numerous’ is emphatic,
and can therefore stand at the end. The inversion is rather explained
than justified by the still stronger emphasis on ‘Miss Hartmann’.
Sentences in which both subject and predicate are independently
emphatic should be avoided, quite apart from the question of inversion:
italics are more or less necessary to secure the inferior emphasis, and
italics are a confession of weakness.
Somewhat lightened was the _provincial_ panic by this proof that
the murderer had not condescended to sneak into the country, or to
abandon for a moment, under any motion of caution or fear, the great
metropolitan _castra stativa_ of gigantic crime seated for ever on the
Thames.--DE QUINCEY (the italics are his).
Not a happy attempt. We notice, for one thing, that the subject does
not come at the end; the inversion is not complete. Let us complete
it. To do so, we must convey our huge sign-post to the beginning: ‘By
this proof ... Thames, was somewhat lightened the _provincial_ panic.’
Worse than ever; is the compound verb to blame? Remove it, and see:
‘In consequence of this proof ... Thames, subsided in some degree the
_provincial_ panic’. This is not much better. There is another and
a worse flaw: condition number one is not satisfied; we want ‘an
emphatic subject that carries in itself the point of the sentence’. Now
we must not assume that because ‘provincial’ is italicized, therefore
the subject (however emphatic) carries in itself the point of the
sentence. What is that point? what imaginary question does the sentence
answer? Can it be meant to answer the question ‘What limitations were
there upon the comfort derived from the intelligence that the murderer
was still in London?’? No; that question could not be asked; we have
not yet been told that any comfort at all was derived. The question
it answers is ‘What effect did this intelligence produce upon the
general panic?’. This question can be asked; for the reader evidently
knows that a panic had prevailed, and that the intelligence had come.
If, then, we are to use balance inversion, we must so reconstruct
the sentence that the words containing the essential answer to this
question become the subject; we must change ‘somewhat lightened’
into ‘some alleviation’. ‘From this proof ... Thames, resulted some
alleviation of the _provincial_ panic.’ That is the best that inversion
will do for us; it is not quite satisfactory, and the reason is that
the sentence is made to do too much. When the essential point is
subject to an emphatic limitation (an unemphatic one like ‘somewhat’
does not matter), the limitation ought to be conveyed in a separate
sentence; otherwise the sentence is overworked, and either shirks its
work, with the result of obscurity, or protests by means of italics.
We ought therefore to have: ‘From ... resulted some alleviation of the
general panic; this, however, was confined to the provinces’. But,
except for this incidental fault, the sentence can be mended without
inversion: ‘By this proof ... Thames, the _provincial_ panic was
somewhat lightened’.
=c. Inversion in syntactic clauses.=
In clauses introduced by _as_, _than_, or a relative (pronoun or
adverb), we have only a special case of balance inversion. They differ
from the instances considered above in this important respect, that
their relation to the preceding words is no longer paratactic, but
syntactic, with the result that the sign-post indicating this relation
is necessarily placed at the beginning. This will be seen from a
comparison of the paratactic and syntactic forms in the following pairs
of examples:
He was quick-tempered: so are most Irishmen. (Paratactic.)
He was quick-tempered, as are most Irishmen. (Syntactic.)
Several difficulties now arose: among them was....
Several difficulties now arose, among which was....
Now in each of these sentences there are the same inducements to
inversion in the syntactic form as in the paratactic; and added to
these is the necessity for placing the sign-post at the beginning. We
might expect, therefore, that inversion of syntactic clauses would
be particularly common. But (i) We have already seen that inversion
does not necessarily follow from the fact that the sign-post is placed
at the beginning. And (ii) The verb in _as_ and _than_ clauses will
probably, from the nature of the case, be the same as in the preceding
clause. If it is in the same mood and tense, it can usually be omitted,
unless effective repetition is required, in which case it will go to
the end: a change of mood or tense, on the other hand, will often be
marked by an auxiliary (itself perhaps compound), which again will
usually preclude inversion.
The result is this:
i. Relative clauses, uninfluenced by the position of the sign-post,
remain subject to precisely the same conditions as the corresponding
paratactic sentences. Thus ‘Among whom were....’ is right, just
as ‘Among the guests were....’ was right; ‘Among which would I
mention....’ is of course impossible, because the subject does not
carry the point; and ‘To which may be attributed....’ is right or
wrong, according as the subject is or is not long enough to balance the
compound verb.
ii. Inversion of an _as_ or _than_ clause, having become unusual for
the reason mentioned above, is almost certain to look either archaic
or clumsy; clumsy when the reason for it is apparent, archaic when it
is not. The practical rule is this: if you cannot omit the verb, put
it at the end; and if you can neither omit it nor put it at the end,
reconstruct the sentence.
The German government was as anxious to upset M. Delcassé as have been
his bitterest opponents in France.--_Times._
The verb is preserved to avoid ambiguity. But it should go to the end,
especially as it is compound.
Relishing humour more than does any other people, the Americans could
not be seriously angry.--BRYCE.
Ambiguity cannot fairly be pleaded here; the verb should be omitted.
If France remains as firm as did England at that time, she will
probably have as much reason as had England to congratulate
herself.--_Times._
Either ‘as England did’, or, since the parallel is significant, ‘as
England then remained’. Also, ‘as England had’.
St. Paul’s writings are as full of apparent paradoxes as sometimes
seems the Sermon on the Mount.--_Spectator._
The verb must be retained, for the sake of _sometimes_; but it should
go to the end.
But he has performed as have few, if any, in offices similar to his
the larger, benigner functions of an Ambassador.--_Times._
‘As few ... have performed them.’
Her impropriety was no more improper than is the natural instinct of a
bird or animal improper.--E. F. BENSON.
This is like the case considered in b. ‘so is every one selfish’. If
_improper_ is repeated with rhetorical effect, there is no need of
inversion: if not, it should be left out.
There had been from time to time a good deal of interest over Mrs.
Emsworth’s career, the sort of interest which does more for a time in
filling a theatre than would acting of a finer quality than hers have
done.--E. F. BENSON.
Either ‘would have done’ at the end, or (perhaps better) no verb at all.
All must join with me in the hope you express--that ... as also must
all hope that some good will come of....--_Times._
Like the indiscriminate use of _while_, this ungainly _as_ connexion is
popular with slovenly writers, and is always aggravated by inversion.
‘All, too, must hope....’
=d. Negative inversion, and false ‘emphasis’ inversion.=
The connexion here suggested between certain forms of inversion must
be taken to represent, not by any means the historical order of
development, with which we are not directly concerned, but the order
in which a modern writer may be supposed, more or less unconsciously,
to adopt them. Starting from an isolated case of necessary inversion,
we proceed to extensions of it that seem natural and are sanctioned
by modern usage; and from these to other extensions, based probably
on a misunderstanding, and producing in modern writers the effect of
archaism.
_Nor_, except when used in conjunction with _neither_, always stands
first; and if the subject appears at all, the sentence is always
inverted. This requires no illustration.
On the analogy of _nor_, many other negative words and phrases are
thrown to the beginning of the sentence, and again inversion is the
result.
Never had the Cardinal’s policy been more triumphantly vindicated.
Nowhere is this so noticeable as in the South of France.
In no case can such a course be justified merely by success.
Systems, neither of which can be regarded as philosophically
established, but neither of which can we consent to
surrender.--BALFOUR.
Two sorts of judgments, neither of which can be deduced from the
other, and of neither of which can any proof be given.--BALFOUR.
It is at this stage that misconception creeps in. Most of these
negative phrases are in themselves emphatic; and from their being
placed first (really on the analogy of _nor_) comes the mistaken idea
that they derive emphasis from their position. This paves the way for
wholesale inversion: any words, other than the subject, are placed at
the beginning; and this not always in order to emphasize the words
so placed, but merely to give an impressive effect to the whole. The
various steps are marked by the instances that follow. In the first
two, inversion may be on the analogy of negatives, or may be designed
for emphasis; in the third, emphasis is clearly the motive; and in the
rest we have mere impressiveness--not to say mere mannerism.
With difficulty could he be persuaded....
Disputes were rife in both cases, but in both cases have the disputes
been arranged.--_Times._
Almost unanimously do Americans assume that....--_Times._
They hardly resembled real ships, so twisted and burnt were the
funnels and superstructure; rather did they resemble the ghosts of a
long departed squadron....--_Times._
His love of romantic literature was as far as possible from that of a
mind which only feeds on romantic excitements. Rather was it that of
one who was so moulded....--HUTTON.
There is nothing to show that the Asclepiads took any prominent
share in the work of founding anatomy, physiology, zoology,
and botany. Rather do these seem to have sprung from the early
philosophers.--HUXLEY.
His works were ordered to be burnt by the common hangman. Yet was the
multitude still true to him.--MACAULAY.
Henry Fox, or nobody, could weather the storm which was about to
burst. Yet was he a person to whom the court, even in that extremity,
was unwilling to have recourse.--MACAULAY.
A book of ‘levities and gravities’, it would seem from the author’s
dedication, is this set of twelve essays, named after the twelve
months.--_Westminster Gazette._
The set epistolary pieces, one might say, were discharged before the
day of Elia. Yet is there certainly no general diminution of sparkle
or interest....--_Times._
Futile were the endeavor to trace back to Pheidias’ varied originals,
as we are tempted to do, many of the later statues....--L. M. MITCHELL.
Inevitably critical was the attitude that he adopted towards
religion.... Odious to him were, on the one hand, ....--_Journal of
Education._
Finely conceived is this poem, and not less admirable in
execution.--_Westminster Gazette._
‘The Rainbow and the Rose’, by E. Nisbet, is a little book that will
not disappoint those who know the writer’s ‘Lays and Legends’. Facile
and musical, sincere and spontaneous, are these lyrics.--_Westminster
Gazette._
Then to the resident Medical Officer at the Brompton Hospital for
Consumption for an authoritative opinion on the subject went the
enquirer.--_Westminster Gazette._
In view of the rapidly increasing tendency to causeless inversion of
all kinds, it is far from certain that this last is intentional satire.
=e. Miscellaneous.=
(i) In narrated dialogue, the demand for variations of ‘he said’, &c.,
excuse considerable freedom in the matter of inversion. One or two
points, however, may be noticed.
When the subject is a personal pronoun, _say_ is perhaps the only verb
with which inversion is advisable. ‘Said I, he, they’, and ‘retorted
Jones’: but not ‘enquired I’, ‘rejoined he’, ‘suggested they’.
Compound verbs, as usual, do not lend themselves to inversion:
‘I won’t plot anything extra against Tom,’ had said Isaac.--M.
MAARTENS.
‘At any rate, then,’ may rejoin our critic, ‘it is clearly
useless....’--SPENCER.
‘I am the lover of a queen,’ had often sung the steward in his pantry
below.--R. ELLIOT.
‘The cook and the steward are always quarrelling, it is quite
unbearable,’ had explained Mrs. Tuggy to the chief mate.--R. ELLIOT.
Inverted _said_ at the beginning is one of the first pitfalls that
await the novice who affects sprightliness. It is tolerable, if
anywhere, only in light playful verse.
Said a friend to me the other day, ‘I should like to be able to run
well across country, but have never taken part in a paper-chase, for
I have always been beaten so easily when trying a hundred yards or so
against my acquaintances....’--S. THOMAS.
Mr. Takahira and Count Cassini continue to exchange repartees through
friends or through the public press. Said the Japanese Minister
yesterday evening:--_Times._
It is inferred here officially and unofficially that neutral rights
are unlikely to suffer from any derangement in Morocco to which
England is a consenting party. Said a Minister:--‘American interests
are not large enough in Morocco to induce us to....’--_Times._
With verbs other than _said_, this form of inversion is still more
decidedly a thing to be left to the poets. ‘Appears Verona’; ‘Rose a
nurse of ninety years’; but not
Comes a new translation ... in four neat olive-green
volumes.--_Journal of Education._
(ii) The inverted conditionals _should_, _had_, _could_, _would_,
_were_, _did_, being recommended by brevity and a certain neatness, are
all more or less licensed by modern usage. It is worth while, however,
to name them in what seems to be their order of merit. _Should I_,
from its frequency, is without taint of archaism; but _could_ and
_would_, and, in a less degree, _had_, are apt to betray their archaic
character by the addition of _but_ (‘would he but consent’); and _were_
and _did_ are felt to be slightly out of date, even without this hint.
I should be, therefore, worse than a fool, did I object.--SCOTT.
Did space allow, I could give you startling proof of this.--_Times._
(iii) Always, after performing inversion of any kind, the novice
should go his rounds, and see that all is shipshape. For want of this
precaution, a writer who was no novice, particularly in the matter of
inversion, produces such curiosities as these:
Be this a difference of inertia, of bulk or of form, matters not to
the argument.--SPENCER.
It is true that, disagreeing with M. Comte, though I do, in all those
fundamental views that are peculiar to him, I agree with him in sundry
minor views.--SPENCER.
We shall venture on removing the comma before ‘though’; but must leave
it to connoisseurs in inversion to decide between the rival attractions
of ‘disagree with M. Comte though I do’ and ‘disagreeing ... though I
am’. ‘Though I do’, in spite of the commas, can scarcely be meant to be
parenthetic; that would give (by resolution of the participle) ‘though
I disagree with M. Comte, though I do, ....’
ARCHAISM
=a. Occasional.=
We have implied in former sections, and shall here take it for granted,
that occasional archaism is always a fault, conscious or unconscious.
There are, indeed, a few writers--Lamb is one of them--whose
uncompromising terms, ‘Love me, love my archaisms’, are generally
accepted; but they are taking risks that a novice will do well not to
take.
As to unconscious archaism, it might be thought that such a thing could
scarcely exist: to employ unconsciously a word that has been familiar,
and is so no longer, can happen to few. Yet charitable readers
will believe that in the following sentence _demiss_ has slipped
unconsciously from a learned pen:
He perceived that the Liberal ministry had offended certain
influential sections by appearing too demiss or too unenterprising in
foreign affairs.--BRYCE.
The guilt of such peccadilloes as this may be said to vary inversely
as the writer’s erudition; for in this matter the learned may plead
ignorance, where the novice knows too well what he is doing. It is
conscious archaism that offends, above all the conscious archaisms of
the illiterate: the historian’s _It should seem_, even the essayist’s
_You shall find_, is less odious, though not less deliberate, than
the _ere_, _oft_, _aught_, _thereanent_, _I wot_, _I trow_, and
similar ornaments, with which amateurs are fond of tricking out their
sentences. This is only natural. An educated writer’s choice falls
upon archaisms less hackneyed than the amateur’s; he uses them, too,
with more discretion, limiting his favourites to a strict allowance,
say, of once in three essays. The amateur indulges us with his whole
repertoire in a single newspaper letter of twenty or thirty lines,
and--what is worse--cannot live up to the splendours of which he is so
lavish: charmed with the discovery of some antique order of words, he
selects a modern slang phrase to operate upon; he begins a sentence
with _ofttimes_, and ends it with a grammatical blunder; aspires to
_albeit_, and achieves _howbeit_. Our list begins with the educated
specimens, but lower down the reader will find several instances of
this fatal incongruity of style; fatal, because the culprit proves
himself unworthy of what is worthless. For the vilest of trite
archaisms has this latent virtue, that it might be worse; to use it,
and by using it to make it worse, is to court derision.
A coiner or a smuggler _shall_ get off tolerably well.--LAMB.
The same circumstance may make one person laugh, which _shall_ render
another very serious.--LAMB.
You _shall_ hear the same persons say that George Barnwell is very
natural, and Othello is very natural.--LAMB.
Don Quixote _shall_ last you a month for breakfast
reading.--_Spectator._
Take them as they come, you _shall_ find in the common people a surly
indifference.--EMERSON.
The worst of making a mannerism of this _shall_ is that, after the
first two or three times, the reader is certain to see it coming; for
its function is nearly always the same--to bring in illustrations of a
point already laid down.
Some of us, like Mr. Andrew Lang for instance, _cannot away with_ a
person who does not care for Scott or Dickens.--_Spectator._
One _needs_ not praise their courage.--EMERSON.
What turn things are likely to take if this version _be_ persisted in
is a matter for speculation.--_Times._
If Mr. Hobhouse’s analysis of the vices of popular government _be_
correct, much more would seem to be needed.--_Times._
Mr. Bowen has been, not recalled, but ordered to Washington, and will
be expected to produce proof, if any he _have_, of his charges against
Mr. Loomis.--_Times._
It _were_ futile to attempt to deprive it of its real
meaning.--_Times._
It _were_ idle to deny that the revolutionary movement in Russia is
nowhere followed with keener interest than in this country.--_Times._
It _were_ idle to deny that coming immediately after the
Tangier demonstration it assumes special and unmistakable
significance.--_Times._
He is putting poetic ‘frills’, if the phrase _be_ not too mean, on
what is better stated in the prose summary of the argument.--_Times._
Regarded as a counter-irritant to slang, archaism is a failure.
_Frills_ is ten times more noticeable for the prim and pompous _be_.
Under them the land is being rapidly frivolled away, and,
unless immediate action _be_ taken, the country will be so tied
that....--_Times._
That will depend a good deal on whether he _be_ shocked by the
cynicism of the most veracious of all possible representations....--H.
JAMES.
We _may_ not quote the lengthy passage here: it is probably familiar
to many readers.--_Times._
‘We must not’. Similarly, the modern prose English for _if I be, it
were_, is _if I am, it would be_.
‘I have no particular business at L.,’ said he; ‘I was merely going
_thither_ to pass a day or two.’--BORROW.
I am afraid you will hardly be able to ride your horse _thither_ in
time to dispose of him.--BORROW.
It will necessitate my recurring _thereto_ in the House of
Commons.--_Spectator._
The Scottish Free Church had _theretofore_ prided itself upon the
rigidity of its orthodoxy.--BRYCE.
The special interests of France in Morocco, _whereof_ the recognition
by Great Britain and Spain forms the basis of the international
agreements concluded last year by the French Government.--_Times._
To what extent has any philosophy or any revelation assured us
_hereof_ till now?--F. W. H. MYERS.
On the concert I need not dwell; the reader would not care to have my
impressions _thereanent_.--C. BRONTË.
_There_, not _thither_, is the modern form; _to it_, not _thereto_;
_of which_, _of this_, not _whereof_, _hereof_; _till then_, or _up to
that time_, not _theretofore_. So, in the following examples, _except_,
_perhaps_, _before_, _though_; not _save_, _perchance_, _ere_, _albeit_.
Nobody _save_ an individual in no condition to distinguish a hawk from
a handsaw....--_Times._
My ignorance as to ‘figure of merit’ is of no moment _save_ to
myself.--_Times._
This we obtain by allowing imports to go untaxed _save_ only for
revenue purposes.--_Spectator._
Who now reads Barry Cornwall or Talfourd _save_ only in connexion with
their memorials of the rusty little man in black?--_Times._
In my opinion the movements may be attributed to unconscious
cerebration, _save_ in those cases in which it is provoked
wilfully.--_Times._
When Mr. Roosevelt was but barely elected Governor of New York, when
Mr. Bryan was once and again by mounting majorities excused from
service at the White House, _perchance_ neither correctly forecasted
the actual result.--_Times._
Dr. Bretton was a cicerone after my own heart; he would take me
betimes _ere_ the galleries were filled.--C. BRONTË.
He is certainly not cruising on a trade route, or his presence would
long _ere_ this have been reported.--_Times._
Mr. Shaynor unlocked a drawer, and _ere_ he began to write, took out a
meagre bundle of letters.--KIPLING.
Fortifications are fixed, immobile defences, and, in time of war, must
await the coming of an enemy _ere_ they can exercise their powers of
offence.--_Times._
‘It is something in this fashion’, she cried out _ere_ long; ‘the man
is too romantic and devoted.’--C. BRONTË.
_Ere_ departing, however, I determined to stroll about and examine the
town.--BORROW.
The use of _ere_ with a gerund is particularly to be avoided.
And that she should force me, by the magic of her pen to
mentally acknowledge, _albeit_ with wrath and shame, my own
inferiority!--CORELLI.
Such things as our modern newspapers chronicle, _albeit_ in different
form.--CORELLI.
It is thought by experts that there could be no better use of
the money, _albeit_ the best American colleges, with perhaps one
exception, have very strong staffs of professors at incredibly low
salaries.--_Times._
‘Oxoniensis’ approaches them with courage, his thoughts are expressed
in plain, unmistakable language, _howbeit_ with the touch of a master
hand.--_Daily Telegraph._
The writer means _albeit_; he would have been safer with _though_.
Living in a coterie, he seems to have read the laudations and not to
have noticed _aught_ else.--_Times._
Hence, if higher criticism, or _aught_ besides, compels any man
to question, say, the historic accuracy of the fall....--_Daily
Telegraph._
Many a true believer _owned not up_ to his faith.--_Daily Telegraph._
The controversy now going on in your columns _anent_ ‘Do we believe?’
throws a somewhat strange light upon the religion of to-day.--_Daily
Telegraph._
It is because the world has not accepted the religion of Jesus
Christ our Lord, that the world is _in the parlous state we see it
still_.--_Daily Telegraph._
A discussion in which _well nigh_ every trade, profession and calling
have been represented.--_Daily Telegraph._
Why not? Because we have _well-nigh bordering on_ 300 different
interpretations of the message Christ bequeathed us.--_Daily
Telegraph._
It is quite a common thing to see ladies with their hymn-books in
their hands, _ere_ returning home from church enter shops and make
purchases which might _every whit_ as well have been effected on the
Saturday.--_Daily Telegraph._
How _oft_ do those who train young minds need to urge the necessity of
being in earnest....--_Daily Telegraph._
I _trow_ not.--_Daily Telegraph._
The clerk, as I conjectured him to be from his appearance, was also
commoved; for, sitting opposite to Mr. Morris, that honest gentleman’s
terror communicated itself to him, though he _wotted_ not why.--SCOTT.
I should be _right_ glad if the substance could be made known to
clergy and ministers of all denominations.--_Daily Telegraph._
So sordid are the lives of such natures, who are not only not heroic
to their valets and waiting-women, but have neither valets nor
waiting-women to be heroic to _withal_.--DICKENS.
=b. Sustained archaism in narrative and dialogue.=
A novelist who places his story in some former age may do so for
the sake of a purely superficial variety, without any intention of
troubling himself or his readers with temporal colour more than is
necessary to avoid glaring absurdities; he is then not concerned with
archaism at all. More commonly, however, it is part of his plan to
present a living picture of the time of which he writes. When this
is the case, he naturally feels bound to shun anachronism not only
in externals, but in thought and the expression of thought. Now with
regard to the language of his characters, it would be absurd for him
to pretend to anything like consistent realism: he probably has no
accurate knowledge of the language as his characters would speak it;
and if he had this knowledge, and used it, he would be unintelligible
to most of his readers, and burdensome to the rest. Accordingly, if he
is wise, he will content himself with keeping clear of such modes of
expression as are essentially modern and have only modern associations,
such as would jar upon the reader’s sense of fitness and destroy the
time illusion. He will aim, that is to say, at a certain archaic
directness and simplicity; but with the archaic vocabulary, which
instead of preserving the illusion only reminds us that there is an
illusion to be preserved, he will have little to do. This we may call
negative archaism. _Esmond_ is an admirable example of it, and the
‘Dame Gossip’ part of Mr. Meredith’s _Amazing Marriage_ is another. It
hardly occurs to us in these books that the language is archaic; it
is appropriate, that is all. The same may be said, on the whole, of
_Treasure Island_, and of one or two novels of Besant’s.
Only the novelist who is not wise indulges in positive archaism. He
is actuated by the determination to have everything in character at
all costs. He does not know very much about old English of any period;
very few people do, and those who know most of it would be the last to
attempt to write a narrative in it. He gives us, however, all that
he knows, without much reference to particular periods; it may not be
good ancient English, but, come what may, it shall not be good modern.
This, it need scarcely be said, is not fair play: the recreation is
all on the writer’s side. Archaism is, no doubt, very seductive to the
archaist. Well done (that is, negatively done), it looks easy; and to
do it badly is perhaps even easier than it looks. No very considerable
stock-in-trade is required; the following will do quite well:
Prithee--quotha--perchance--peradventure--i’ faith--sirrah--beshrew
me--look ye--sith that--look to it--leave prating--it shall go hard
but--I tell you, but--the more part--fair cold water--to me-ward--I
am shrewdly afeared--it is like to go stiff with me--y’ are--y’
have--it irks me sorely--benison--staunch--gyves--yarely--this same
villain--drink me this--you were better go; to these may be added
the indiscriminate use of ‘Nay’ and ‘Now (by the rood, &c.)’; free
inversion; and verb terminations in _-st_ and _-th_. Our list is
largely drawn from Stevenson, who, having tried negative archaism with
success in _Treasure Island_, chose to give us a positive specimen in
_The Black Arrow_. How vexatious these reach-me-down archaisms can
become, even in the hands of an able writer, will be seen from the
following examples of a single trick, all taken from _The Black Arrow_.
An I had not been a thief, I could not have painted _me_ your face.
Put _me_ your hand into the corner, and see what ye find there.
Bring _me_ him down like a ripe apple. And keep ever forward, Master
Shelton; turn _me_ not back again, an ye love your life.
Selden, take _me_ this old shrew softly to the nearest elm, and hang
_me_ him tenderly by the neck, where I may see him at my riding.
Mark _me_ this old villain on the piebald.
‘Sirrah, no more words,’ said Dick. ‘Bend _me_ your back.’
‘Here is a piece of forest that I know not’, Dick remarked. ‘Where
goeth _me_ this track?’
‘I slew him fair. I ran _me_ in upon his bow,’ he cried.
‘Swallow _me_ a good draught of this,’ said the knight.
It is like a child with a new toy.
But there is the opposite fault. The judicious archaist, as we
have said, will abstain from palpable modernisms, especially from
modern slang. The following extracts are taken from an old woman’s
reminiscences of days in which a ‘faultless attire’ included ‘half high
boots, knee-breeches very tight above the calf (as the fashion was
then), a long-tailed cutaway coat, ...’:
But the Captain, who, of course, lacks bowels of mercy for this kind
of thing, says that if he had been Caesar, ‘Caius would have _got
the great chuck_. Yes, madam, I would have broke Mister Caius on the
spot’.--CROCKETT.
But if you once go in for _having a good time_ (as Miss Anne in her
innocence used to remark) you must be prepared to....--CROCKETT.
... as all girls love to do when they are content with the way they
have _put in their time_.--CROCKETT.
METAPHOR
Strictly speaking, metaphor occurs as often as we take a word out of
its original sphere and apply it to new circumstances. In this sense
almost all words can be shown to be metaphorical when they do not bear
a physical meaning; for the original meaning of almost all words can
be traced back to something physical; in our first sentence above, for
instance, there are eight different metaphors. Words had to be found to
express mental perceptions, abstract ideas, and complex relations, for
which a primitive vocabulary did not provide; and the obvious course
was to convey the new idea by means of the nearest physical parallel.
The commonest Latin verb for _think_ is a metaphor from vine-pruning;
‘seeing’ of the mind is borrowed from literal sight; ‘pondering’ is
metaphorical ‘weighing’. Evidently these metaphors differ in intention
and effect from such a phrase as ‘smouldering’ discontent; the former
we may call, for want of a better word, ‘natural’ metaphor, as opposed
to the latter, which is artificial. The word metaphor as ordinarily
used suggests only the artificial kind: but in deciding on the merits
or demerits of a metaphorical phrase we are concerned as much with the
one class as the other; for in all doubtful cases our first questions
will be, what was the writer’s intention in using the metaphor? is
it his own, or is it common property? if the latter, did he use it
consciously or unconsciously?
This distinction, however, is useful only as leading up to another.
We cannot use it directly as a practical test: artificial metaphors,
as well as natural ones, often end by becoming a part of ordinary
language; when this has happened, there is no telling to which class
they belong, and in English the question is complicated by the fact
that our metaphorical vocabulary is largely borrowed from Latin in the
metaphorical state. Take such a word as _explain_: its literal meaning
is ‘spread out flat’: how are we to say now whether necessity or
picturesqueness first prompted its metaphorical use? And the same doubt
might arise centuries hence as to the origin of a phrase so obviously
artificial to us as ‘glaring inconsistency’.
Our practical distinction will therefore be between conscious or
‘living’ and unconscious or ‘dead’ metaphor, whether natural or
artificial in origin: and again, among living metaphors, we shall
distinguish between the intentional, which are designed for effect,
and the unintentional, which, though still felt to be metaphors, are
used merely as a part of the ordinary vocabulary. It may seem at
first sight that this classification leaves us where we were: how can
we know whether a writer uses a particular metaphor consciously or
unconsciously? We cannot know for certain: it is enough if we think
that he used it consciously, and know that we should have used it
consciously ourselves; experience will tell us how far our perceptions
in this respect differ from other people’s. Most readers, we think,
will agree in the main with our classification of the following
instances; they are taken at random from a couple of pages of the
_Spectator_.
These we should call dead: ‘his _views_ were personal’; ‘_carry out_
his policy’; ‘not _acceptable_ to his _colleagues_’; ‘the Chancellor
_proposed_’; ‘some _grounds_ for _complaint_’; ‘_refrain_ from talking
about them’; ‘the _remission_ of the Tea-duty’; ‘_sound_ policy’; ‘a
speech almost entirely _composed_ of _extracts_’; ‘_reduction_ of
taxation’; ‘_discussion_’; ‘the _low_ price of Consols’; ‘_falls_
due’; ‘_succeeded_’; ‘will _approach_ their task’; ‘_delivered_ a
speech’; ‘_postponing_ to a future year’. The next are living, but not
intentional metaphor; the writer is aware that his phrase is still
picturesque in effect, but has not chosen it for that reason: ‘a
Protestant _atmosphere_’; ‘this would leave a _margin_ of £122,000’;
‘the loss of _elasticity_’ in the Fund; ‘_recasting_ our whole Fiscal
system’; ‘to _uphold_ the unity of the Empire’; ‘to _strengthen_ the
Exchequer balances’; ‘all _dwelt_ on the grave injury’; ‘his somewhat
_shattered_ authority’; ‘the policy of evasion now _pursued_’;
‘_throws_ new _light_ on the situation’; ‘a _gap_ in our fiscal
system’. Intentional metaphors are of course less plentiful: ‘the
home-rule motion designed to “_draw_” Sir Henry’; ‘a _dissolving view_
of General Elections’; ‘this reassuring declaration _knocks the bottom
out of_ the plea of urgency’; ‘the _scattered remnants_ of that party
might _rally after the disastrous defeat_’.
One or two general remarks may be made before we proceed to instances.
It is scarcely necessary to warn any one against over-indulgence in
intentional metaphor; its effects are too apparent. The danger lies
rather in the use of live metaphor that is not intentional. The many
words and phrases that fall under this class are all convenient; as
often as not they are the first that occur, and it is laborious,
sometimes impossible, to hit upon an equivalent; the novice will find
it worth while, however, to get one whenever he can. We may read a
newspaper through without coming upon a single metaphor of this kind
that is at all offensive in itself; it is in the aggregate that they
offend. ‘Cries aloud for’, ‘drop the curtain on’, ‘goes hand in hand
with’, ‘a note of warning’, leaves its impress’, ‘paves the way for’,
‘heralds the advent of’, ‘opens the door to’, are not themselves
particularly noisy phrases; but writers who indulge in them generally
end by being noisy.
Unintentional metaphor is the source, too, of most actual blunders.
Every one is on his guard when his metaphor is intentional; the
nonsense that is talked about mixed metaphor, and the celebrity of one
or two genuine instances of it that come down to us from the eighteenth
century, have had that good effect. There are few obvious faults a
novice is more afraid of committing than this of mixed metaphor. His
fears are often groundless; many a sentence that might have stood has
been altered from a misconception of what mixed metaphor really is. The
following points should be observed.
1. If only one of the metaphors is a live one, the confusion is not a
confusion for practical purposes.
2. Confusion can only exist between metaphors that are grammatically
inseparable; parallel metaphors between which there is no grammatical
dependence cannot result in confusion. The novice must beware, however,
of being misled either by punctuation or by a parallelism that does not
secure grammatical independence. Thus, no amount of punctuation can
save the time-honoured example ‘I smell a rat: I see him hovering in
the air: ... I will nip him in the bud’. _Him_ is inseparable from the
later metaphors, and refers to the rat. But there is no confusion in
the following passage; any one of the metaphors can be removed without
affecting the grammar:
This royal throne of kings, this sceptred isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, ...
This fortress built by Nature for herself ...
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea, ...
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings, ...
3. Metaphor within metaphor is dangerous. Here there is a grammatical
dependence between the metaphors, and if the combination is unsuitable
confusion will result. But combination is one thing, and confusion
is another: if the internal metaphor is not inconsistent with the
external, there is no confusion, though there may be ugliness. To adapt
one of our examples below, ‘The Empire’s butcher (i. e. New Zealand)
has not all his eggs in one basket’ is not a confusion, because a
metaphorical butcher can have his eggs in one basket as well as any one
else. What does lead to confusion is the choice of an internal metaphor
applicable not to the words of the external metaphor, but to the
literal words for which it is substituted. In the following example,
the confusion is doubtless intended.
This pillar of the state
Hath swallowed hook and bait.
The swallowing is applicable only to the person metaphorically called a
pillar.
4. Confusion of metaphor is sometimes alleged against sentences that
contain only one metaphor--a manifest absurdity. These are really
cases of a clash between the metaphorical and the non-metaphorical.
A striking or original metaphor is apt to appear violent, and a
commonplace one impertinent, if not adequately borne out by the rest of
the sentence. This we may label ‘unsustained metaphor’. It sometimes
produces much the same effect as mixed metaphor; but the remedy for
it, as well as the cause, is different. Mixed metaphor is the result
of negligence, and can generally be put right by a simple adaptation
of the language to whichever metaphor is to be retained. Unsustained
metaphor is rather an error of judgement: it is unsustained either
because it was difficult to sustain, or because it was not worth
sustaining; in either case abandonment is the simplest course.
This diverting incident contributed in a high degree to the general
merriment.
Here we have four different metaphors; but as they are all dead, there
is no real confusion.
This, as you know, was a burning question; and its unseasonable
introduction threw a chill on the spirits of all our party.
_Burning_ and _chill_ are both live metaphors, they are grammatically
connected by _its_, and they are inconsistent; there is therefore
confusion.
The uncertainty which hangs over every battle extends in a special
degree to battles at sea.--_Spectator._
_Extends_ is usually dead; and if in this case it is living, it is also
suitable.
A centre and nucleus round which the scattered remnants of that party
might rally after the disastrous defeat.--_Spectator._
The main or external metaphor is that of an army. Now any metaphor that
is applicable to a literal army is also applicable to a metaphorical
one: but ‘rally round a nucleus’ is a confusion of metaphor, to
whichever it is applied; it requires us to conceive of the army at the
same time as animal and vegetable, _nucleus_ being literally the kernel
of a nut, and metaphorically a centre about which growth takes place.
An army can have a nucleus, but cannot rally round it.
Sir W. Laurier had claimed for Canada that she would be the granary
and baker of the Empire, and Sir Edmund Barton had claimed for
Australia that she would be the Empire’s butcher; but in New Zealand
they had not all their eggs in one basket, and they could claim a
combination of the three.
This is quoted in a newspaper as an example of mixed metaphor. It
is nothing of the kind: _they_ in New Zealand are detached from the
metaphor.
We move slowly and cautiously from old moorings in our English life,
that is our laudable constitutional habit; but my belief is that the
great majority of moderate churchmen, to whatever political party they
may belong, desirous as they are to lift this question of popular
education out of the party rut, ....
‘A rut’, says the same newspaper, ‘is about the very last thing we
should expect to find at sea, despite the fact that it is ploughed’.
There is no mention of ruts at sea; the two metaphors are independent.
If the speaker had said ‘Moderate churchmen, moving at length from
their old moorings, are beginning to lift this question out of the
party rut’, we should have had a genuine confusion, the _moorings_ and
the _rut_ being then inseparable. Both this sentence and the preceding
one, the reader may think, would have been better without the second
metaphor; we agree, but it is a question of taste, not of correctness.
... the keenest incentive man can feel to remedy ignorance and
abolish guilt. It is under the impelling force of this incentive that
civilization progresses.--_Spectator._
This illustrates the danger of deciding hastily on the deadness of a
metaphor, however common it may be. Probably any one would have said
that the musical idea in _incentive_ had entirely vanished: but the
successive attributes _keenness_ and _impelling force_ are too severe
a test; the dead metaphor is resuscitated, and a perceptible confusion
results.
Her forehand drive--her most trenchant asset.--_Daily Mail._
Another case of resuscitation. _Trenchant_ turns in its grave; and
_asset_, ready to succumb under the violence of athletic reporters, has
yet life enough to resent the imputation of a keen edge. As the critic
of ‘ruts at sea’ might have observed, the more blunt, the better the
assets.
And the very fact that the past is beyond recall imposes upon the
present generation a continual stimulus to strive for the prevention
of such woes.--_Spectator._
We _impose_ a burden, we apply a _stimulus_. It looks as if the writer
had meant by a short cut to give us both ideas; if so, his guilt is
clear; and if we call _impose_ a mere slip in idiom, the confusion is
none the less apparent.
Sword of the devil, running with the blood of saints, poisoned adder,
thy work is done.
These are independent metaphors; and, as _thy work is done_ is
applicable to each of them, there is no confusion.
In the hope that something might be done, even at the eleventh hour,
to stave off the brand of failure from the hide of our military
administration.--_Times._
To _stave off a brand_ is not, perhaps, impossible; but we suspect
that it would be a waste of energy. The idea of bulk is inseparable
from the process of staving off. The metaphor is usually applied
to literal abstract nouns, not to metaphorical concretes: ruin and
disaster one can suppose to be of a tolerable size; but a metaphorical
brand does not present itself to the imagination as any larger than a
literal one. We assume that by _brand_ the instrument is meant: the
eleventh hour is all too early to set about staving off the mark.
This is a good example of mixed metaphor of the more pronounced type;
it differs only in degree from some of those considered above. We
suggested that _impose a stimulus_ was perhaps a short cut to the
expression of two different metaphors, and the same might be said of
_staving off the brand_. But we shall get a clearer idea of the nature
of mixed metaphor if we regard all these as violations of the following
simple rule: When a live metaphor (intentional or unintentional) has
once been chosen, the words grammatically connected with it must be
either (a) recognizable parts of the same metaphorical idea, or one
consistent with it, or (b) unmetaphorical, or dead metaphor; literal
abstract nouns, for instance, instead of metaphorical concretes.
Thus, we shall impose not the stimulus, but either (a) the burden
of resistance, or (b) the duty of resistance; and we shall stave
off not the ‘brand’ but the ‘ignominy of failure from our military
administration’.
But from our remarks in 4 above, it will be clear that (b), though it
cannot result in confusion of metaphor, may often leave the metaphor
unsustained. Our examples illustrate several common types.
Is it not a little difficult to ask for Liberal votes for Unionist
Free-traders, if we put party interests in the front of the
consideration?--_Spectator._
May I be allowed to add a mite of experience of an original Volunteer
in a good City regiment?--_Spectator._
But also in Italy many ancient edifices have been recently coated with
stucco and masked by superfluous repairs.--_Spectator._
The elementary schools are hardly to be blamed for this failure. Their
aim and their achievement have to content themselves chiefly with
moral rather than with mental success.--_Spectator._
The scourge of tyranny had breathed his last.
The means of education at the disposal of the Protestants and
Presbyterians of the North were stunted and sterilized.--BALFOUR.
I once heard a Spaniard shake his head over the present Queen of
Spain.--(Quoted by _Spectator_.)
But, apart from all that, we see two pinching dilemmas even in this
opium case--dilemmas that screw like a vice--which tell powerfully in
favour of our Tory views.--DE QUINCEY.
The reader who is uncharitable enough to insist upon the natural
history of dilemmas will call this not unsustained metaphor, but a
gross confusion; horns cannot be said to _screw_. We prefer to believe
that De Quincey was not thinking of the horns at all; they are a
gratuitous metaphorical ornament; _dilemma_, in English at any rate,
is a literal word, and means an argument that presents two undesirable
alternatives. The circumstances of a dilemma are, indeed, such as to
prompt metaphorical language, but the word itself is incorrigibly
literal; we confess as much by clapping horns on its head and making
them do the metaphorical work.
These remarks have been dictated in order that the importance
of recognizing the difference and the value of soils may be
understood.--J. LONG.
This metaphor always requires that the dictator--usually a personified
abstract--should be mentioned. ‘Dictated by the importance’.
The opposite fault of over-conscientiousness must also be noticed.
Elaborate poetical metaphor has perhaps gone out of fashion; but
technical metaphor is apt to be overdone, and something of the same
tendency appears in the inexorable working-out of popular catchword
metaphors:
Tost to and fro by the high winds of passionate control, I behold the
desired port, the single state, into which I would fain steer; but am
kept off by the foaming billows of a brother’s and sister’s envy, and
by the raging winds of a supposed invaded authority; while I see in
Lovelace, the rocks on the one hand, and in Solmes, the sands on the
other; and tremble, lest I should split upon the former or strike
upon the latter. But you, my better pilot,...--RICHARDSON.
Such phases of it as we did succeed in mentally kodaking are hardly to
be ‘developed’ in cold print.--_Times._
We are not photographers enough to hazard a comment on _cold_ print.
The leading planks of the Opposition policy are declared to be the
proper audit of public accounts,...--_Times._
REPETITION
‘Rhetorical’ or--to use at once a wider and a more intelligible
term--‘significant’ repetition is a valuable element in modern style;
used with judgement, it is as truly a good thing as clumsy repetition,
the result of negligence, is bad. But there are some writers who, from
the fact that all good repetition is intentional, rashly infer that
all intentional repetition is good; and others who may be suspected of
making repetitions from negligence, and retaining them from a misty
idea that to be aware of a thing is to have intended it. Even when
the repetition is a part of the writer’s original plan, consideration
is necessary before it can be allowed to pass: it is implied in the
terms ‘rhetorical’ or significant repetition that the words repeated
would ordinarily be either varied or left out; the repetition, that
is to say, is more or less abnormal, and whatever is abnormal may be
objectionable in a single instance, and is likely to become so if it
occurs frequently.
The writers who have most need of repetition, and are most justified
in using it, are those whose chief business it is to appeal not to
the reader’s emotions, but to his understanding; for, in spite of
the term ‘rhetorical’, the object ordinarily is not impressiveness
for impressiveness’ sake, but emphasis for the sake of clearness. It
may seem, indeed, that a broad distinction ought to be drawn between
the rhetorical and the non-rhetorical: they differ in origin and in
aim, one being an ancient rhetorical device to secure impressiveness,
the other a modern development, called forth by the requirements of
popular writers on subjects that demand lucidity; and there is the
further difference, that rhetorical repetition often dictates the whole
structure of the sentence, whereas the non-rhetorical, in its commonest
form, is merely the completion of a sentence that need not have been
completed. But in practice the two things become inseparable, and we
shall treat them together; only pointing out to the novice that of the
two motives, impressiveness and lucidity, the latter is far the more
likely to seem justifiable in the reader’s eyes.
We shall illustrate both the good and bad points of repetition almost
exclusively from a few pages of Bagehot, one of its most successful
exponents, in whom nevertheless it degenerates into mannerism. To a
writer who has so much to say that is worth hearing, almost anything
can be forgiven that makes for clearness; and in him clearness, vigour,
and a certain pleasant rapidity, all result from the free use of
repetition. It will be seen that his repetitions are not of the kind
properly called rhetorical; it is the spontaneous fullness of a writer
who, having a clear point to make, is determined to make it clearly,
elegance or no elegance. Yet the growth of mannerism is easily seen in
him; the justifiable repetitions are too frequent, and he has some that
do not seem justifiable.
He analysed not a particular government, but what is common to
all governments; not one law, but what is common to all laws; not
political communities in their features of diversity, but political
communities in their features of necessary resemblance. He gave
politics not an interesting aspect, but a new aspect: for by giving
men a steady view of what political communities must be, he nipped in
the bud many questions as to what they ought to be. As a gymnastic of
the intellect, and as a purifier, Mr. Austin’s philosophy is to this
day admirable--even in its imperfect remains; a young man who will
study it will find that he has gained something which he wanted, but
something which he did not know that he wanted: he has clarified a
part of his mind which he did not know needed clarifying.
All these powers were states of some magnitude, and some were states
of great magnitude. They would be able to go on as they had always
gone on--to shift for themselves as they had always shifted.
Without Spanish and without French, Walpole would have made a good
peace; Bolingbroke could not do so with both.
Cold men may be wild in life and not wild in mind. But warm and eager
men, fit to be the favourites of society, and fit to be great orators,
will be erratic not only in conduct but in judgement.
A man like Walpole, or a man like Louis Napoleon, is protected by an
unsensitive nature from intellectual destruction.
After a war which everyone was proud of, we concluded a peace which
nobody was proud of, in a manner that everyone was ashamed of.
He hated the City because they were Whigs, and he hated the Dutch
because he had deserted them.
But he professed to know nothing of commerce, and did know nothing.
The fierce warlike disposition of the English people would not have
endured such dishonour. We may doubt if it would have endured any
peace. It certainly would not have endured the best peace, unless it
were made with dignity and with honesty.
Using the press without reluctance and without cessation.
He ought to have been able to bear anything, yet he could bear
nothing. He prosecuted many more persons than it was usual to
prosecute then, and far more than have been prosecuted since.... He
thought that everything should be said for him, and that nothing
should be said against him.
Between these fluctuated the great mass of the Tory party, who did not
like the House of Hanover because it had no hereditary right, who did
not like the Pretender because he was a Roman Catholic.
He had no popularity; little wish for popularity; little respect for
popular judgement.
Here is a writer who, at any rate, has not the vice of ‘elegant
variation’. Most of the possibilities of repetition, for good and
for evil, are here represented. As Bagehot himself might have said,
‘we have instances of repetition that are good in themselves; we
have instances of repetition that are bad in themselves; and we
have instances of repetition that are neither particularly good nor
particularly bad in themselves, but that offend simply by recurrence’.
The ludicrous appearance presented by our collection as a whole
necessarily obscures the merit of individual cases; but if the reader
will consider each sentence by itself, he will see that repetition
is often a distinct improvement. The point best illustrated here, no
doubt, is that it impossible to have too much of a good thing; but it
is a good thing for all that. As instances of unjustifiable mannerism,
we may select ‘fit to be the favourites ..., and fit to be great
orators’; ‘not political communities ..., but political communities
...’; ‘something which he wanted, but something which he did not know
that he wanted’; ‘a man like Walpole, or a man like Louis Napoleon’;
‘without reluctance and without cessation’; ‘who did not like ...,
who did not like ...’; and ‘without Spanish and without French’. We
have mentioned clearness as the ultimate motive for repetition of this
kind: in this last sentence, we get not clearness, but obscurity.
Any one would suppose that there was some point in the distinction
between Spanish and French: there is none; the point is, simply, that
languages do not make a statesman. Again, there is sometimes virtue in
half-measures: from ‘something which he did not know that he wanted’
remove the first three words, and there remains quite repetition
enough. ‘Wild in life and not wild in mind’ is a repetition that is
clearly called for; but it is followed by the wholly gratuitous ‘fit
... and fit ...’, and the result is disastrous. Finally, in ‘who did
not like ..., who did not like ...’, mannerism gets the upper hand
altogether: instead of the appearance of natural vigour that ordinarily
characterizes the writer, we have stiff, lumbering artificiality.
Writers like Bagehot do not tend at all to impressive repetition:
their motive is always the business-like one of lucidity, though it is
sometimes lucidity run mad. Repetition of this kind, not being designed
to draw the reader’s attention to itself, wears much better in practice
than the more pronounced types of rhetorical repetition. The latter
should be used very sparingly. As the spontaneous expression of strong
feeling in the writer, it is sometimes justified by circumstances:
employed as a deliberate artifice to impress the reader, it is likely
to be frigid, and to fail in its object; and the term ‘rhetorical’
should remind us in either case that what may be spoken effectively
will not always bear the test of writing.
Rhetorical repetition, when it is clearly distinguishable from the
non-rhetorical, is too obvious to require much illustration. Of the
three instances given, the last is an excellent test case for the
principle that ‘whatever is intentional is good’.
I have summoned you here to witness your own work. I have summoned you
here to witness it, because I know it will be gall and wormwood to
you. I have summoned you here to witness it, because I know the sight
of everybody here must be a dagger in your mean false heart!--DICKENS.
As the lark rose higher, he sank deeper into thought. As the lark
poured out her melody clearer and stronger, he fell into a graver and
profounder silence. At length, when the lark came headlong down ... he
sprang up from his reverie.--DICKENS.
Russia may split into fragments, or Russia may become a
volcano.--_Spectator._
MISCELLANEOUS
a. Some more trite phrases.
The worn-out phrases considered in a former section were of a humorous
tendency: we may add here some expressions of another kind, all of
them calculated in one way or another to save the writer trouble; the
trouble of description, or of producing statistics, or of thinking what
he means. Such phrases naturally die hard; even ‘more easily imagined
than described’ still survives the rough handling it has met with, and
flourishes in writers of a certain class. ‘Depend upon it’, ‘you may
take my word for it’, ‘in a vast majority of cases’, ‘no thinking man
will believe’, ‘all candid judges must surely agree’, ‘it would be a
slaying of the slain’, ‘I am old-fashioned enough to think’, are all
apt to damage the cause they advocate.
The shrill formula ‘It stands to reason’ is one of the worst offenders.
Originally harmless, and still no doubt often used in quite rational
contexts, the phrase has somehow got a bad name for prefacing
fallacies and for begging questions; it lacks the delicious candour of
its feminine equivalent--‘Kindly allow me to know best’--, but appeals
perhaps not less irresistibly to the generosity of an opponent. Apart
from this, there is a correct and an incorrect use of the words. It is
of course the conclusion drawn from certain premisses that stands to
reason; the premisses do not stand to reason; they are assumed to be
a matter of common knowledge, and ought to be distinguished from the
conclusion by _if_ or a causal participle, not co-ordinated with it by
_and_.
My dear fellow, it stands to reason that if the square of _a_ is _a_
squared, and the square of _b_ is _b_ squared, then the square of _a_
minus _b_ is _a_ squared minus _b_ squared. You may argue till we are
both tired, you will never alter that.
It stands to reason that a thick tumbler, having a larger body of cold
matter for the heat to distribute itself over, is less liable to crack
when boiling water is poured into it than a thin one would be.
It stands to reason that my men have their own work to attend to,
and cannot be running about London all day rectifying other people’s
mistakes.
It stands to reason that Russia, though vast, is a poor country,
that the war must cost immense sums, and that there must come a
time....--_Spectator._
Just as ‘stands to reason’ is not an argument, but an invitation to
believe, ‘the worthy Major’ not amusing, but an invitation to smile, so
the sentimental or sensational novelist has his special vocabulary of
the impressive, the tender, the tragic, and the horrible. One or two of
the more obvious catch-phrases may be quoted. In the ‘strong man’ of
fiction the reader may have observed a growing tendency to ‘sob like a
child’; the right-minded hero to whom temptation comes decides, with
archaic rectitude, that he ‘will not do _this thing_’; the villain,
taught by incessant ridicule to abstain from ‘muffled curses’, finds
a vent in ‘discordant laughs, that somehow jarred unpleasantly upon
my nerves’; this laugh, _mutatis mutandis_ (‘cruel little laugh, that
somehow ...’), he shares with the heroine, who for her exclusive
perquisite has ‘this man who had somehow come into her life’. _Somehow_
and _half-dazed_ are invaluable for throwing a mysterious glamour over
situations and characters that shun the broad daylight of common sense.
b. Elementary irony.
A well-known novelist speaks of the resentment that children feel
against those elders who insist upon addressing them in a jocular
tone, as if serious conversation between the two were out of the
question. Irony is largely open to the same objection: the writer
who uses it is taking our intellectual measure; he forgets our _ex
officio_ perfection in wisdom. Theoretically, indeed, the reader is
admitted to the author’s confidence; _he_ is not the _corpus vile_ on
which experiment is made: that, however, is scarcely more convincing
than the two-edged formula ‘present company excepted’. For minute,
detailed illustration of truths that have had the misfortune to become
commonplaces without making their due impression, sustained irony has
its legitimate use: tired of being told, and shown by direct methods,
that only the virtuous man is admirable, we are glad enough to go off
with Fielding on a brisk _reductio ad absurdum_: ‘for if not, let some
other kind of man be admirable; as Jonathan Wild’. But the _reductio_
process should be kept for emergencies, as Euclid kept it, with whom
it is a confession that direct methods are not available. The isolated
snatches of irony quoted below have no such justification: they are
for ornament, not for utility; and it is a kind of ornament that is
peculiarly un-English--a way of shrugging one’s shoulders in print.
He had also the comfortable reflection that, by the violent quarrel
with Lord Dalgarno, he must now forfeit the friendship and good
offices of that nobleman’s father and sister.--SCOTT.
Naturally that reference was received with laughter by the Opposition,
who are, or profess to be, convinced that our countrymen in the
Transvaal do not intend to keep faith with us. They are very welcome
to the monopoly of that unworthy estimate, which must greatly endear
them to all our kindred beyond seas.--_Times._
The whole of these proceedings were so agreeable to Mr. Pecksniff,
that he stood with his eyes fixed upon the floor ..., as if a host of
penal sentences were being passed upon him.--DICKENS.
The time comes when the banker thinks it prudent to contract some of
his accounts, and this may be one which he thinks it expedient to
reduce: and then perhaps he makes the pleasant discovery, that there
are no such persons at all as the acceptors, and that the funds for
meeting all these bills have been got from himself!--H. D. MACLEOD.
_Pleasant_ is put for _unpleasant_ because the latter seemed dull and
unnecessary; the writer should have taken the hint, and put nothing at
all.
The climax is reached by those pessimists who, regarding the reader’s
case as desperate, assist him with punctuation, italics, and the like:
And this honourable (?) proposal was actually made in the presence of
two at least of the parties to the former transaction!
These so-called _gentlemen_ seem to forget....
I was content to be snubbed and harassed and worried a hundred times a
day by one or other of the ‘great’ personages who wandered at will all
over my house and grounds, and accepted my lavish hospitality. Many
people imagine that it must be an ‘honour’ to entertain a select party
of aristocrats, but I....--CORELLI.
The much-prated-of ‘kindness of heart’ and ‘generosity’ possessed by
millionaires, generally amounts to this kind of thing.--CORELLI.
Was I about to discover that the supposed ‘woman-hater’ had been tamed
and caught at last?--CORELLI.
That should undoubtedly have been your ‘great’ career--you were born
for it--made for it! You would have been as brute-souled as you are
now....--CORELLI.
c. Superlatives without _the_.
The omission of _the_ with superlatives is limited by ordinary prose
usage to (1) Superlatives after a possessive: ‘Your best plan’. (2)
Superlatives with _most_: ‘in most distressing circumstances’, but not
‘in saddest circumstances’. (3) Superlatives in apposition, followed
by _of_: ‘I took refuge with X., kindliest of hosts’; ‘We are now
at Weymouth, dingiest of decayed watering-places’. Many writers of
the present day affect the omission of _the_ in all cases where the
superlative only means _very_. No harm will be done if they eventually
have their way: in the meantime, the omission of _the_ with inflected
superlatives has the appearance of gross mannerism.
Our enveloping movements since some days proved successful, and
fiercest battle is now proceeding.--_Times._
In which, too, so many noblest men have ... both made and been what
will be venerated to all time.--CARLYLE.
Struggling with objects which, though it cannot master them, are
essentially of richest significance.--CARLYLE.
The request was urged with every kind suggestion, and every assurance
of aid and comfort, by friendliest parties in Manchester, who, in the
sequel, amply redeemed their word.--EMERSON.
In Darkest Africa.--STANLEY.
Delos furnishes, not only quaintest tripods, crude bronze oxen and
horses like those found at Olympia, but....--L. M. MITCHELL.
The scene represents in crudest forms the combat of gods and giants, a
subject which should attain long afterwards fullest expression in the
powerful frieze of the Great Altar at Pergamon.--L. M. MITCHELL.
A world of highest and noblest thought in dramas of perfect form.--L.
M. MITCHELL.
From earliest times such competitive games had been celebrated.--L. M.
MITCHELL.
When fullest, freest forms had not yet been developed.--L. M. MITCHELL.
d. Cheap originality.
Just as ‘elegant variation’ is generally a worse fault than monotony,
so the avoidance of trite phrases is sometimes worse than triteness
itself. Children have been known to satisfy an early thirst for
notoriety by merely turning their coats inside out; and ‘distinction’
of style has been secured by some writers on the still easier terms
of writing a common expression backwards. By this simplest of all
possible expedients, ‘wear and tear’ ceases to be English, and becomes
Carlylese, and Emerson acquires an exclusive property (so at least
one hopes) in ‘nothing or little’. The novice need scarcely be warned
against infringing these writers’ patents; it would be as unpardonable
as stealing the idea of a machine for converting clean knives into
dirty ones. Hackneyed phrases become hackneyed because they are
useful, in the first instance; but they derive a new efficiency from
the very fact that they are hackneyed. Their precise form grows to
be an essential part of the idea they convey, and all that a writer
effects by turning such a phrase backwards, or otherwise tampering
with it, is to give us our triteness at secondhand; we are put to the
trouble of translating ‘tear and wear’, only to arrive at our old
friend ‘wear and tear’, hackneyed as ever.
How beautiful is noble-sentiment; like gossamer-gauze beautiful and
cheap, which will stand no _tear and wear_.--CARLYLE.
Bloated promises, which end in _nothing or little_.--EMERSON.
The universities also are _parcel_ of the ecclesiastical
system.--EMERSON.
Fox, Burke, Pitt, Erskine, Wilberforce, Sheridan, Romilly,
or _whatever national man_, were by this means sent to
Parliament.--EMERSON.
And the stronger these are, the individual is so much weaker.--EMERSON.
The faster the ball falls to the sun, the force to fly off is by so
much augmented.--EMERSON.
The friction in nature is so enormous that we cannot spare any power.
_It is not question_ to express our thought, to elect our way, but to
overcome resistances.--EMERSON.
CHAPTER IV
PUNCTUATION
In this chapter we shall adhere generally to our plan of not giving
systematic positive directions, or attempting to cover all ground
familiar and unfamiliar, important or not, but drawing attention only
to the most prevalent mistakes. On so technical a subject, however, a
few preliminary remarks may be made; and to those readers who would
prefer a systematic treatise Beadnell’s _Spelling and Punctuation_
(Wyman’s Technical Series, Menken, 2/6) may be recommended. We shall
refer to it occasionally in what follows; and the examples to which
--B. is attached instead of an author’s name are taken from it; these
are all given in Beadnell (unless the contrary is stated) as examples
of correct punctuation. It should be added that the book is written
rather from the compositor’s than from the author’s point of view, and
illustrates the compositor’s natural weaknesses; it is more important
to him, for instance, that a page should not be unsightly (the
unsightliness being quite imaginary, and the result of professional
conservatism) than that quotation marks and stops, or dashes and stops,
should be arranged in their true significant order; but, as the right
and unsightly is candidly given as well as the wrong and beautiful,
this does not matter; the student can take his choice.
We shall begin by explaining how it is that punctuation is a difficult
matter, and worth a writer’s serious attention. There are only six
stops, comma, semicolon, colon, full stop, question mark, exclamation
mark; or, with the dash, seven. The work of three of them, full stop,
question, exclamation, is so clear that mistakes about their use can
hardly occur without gross carelessness; and it might be thought that
with the four thus left it ought to be a very simple matter to exhaust
all possibilities in a brief code of rules. It is not so, however.
Apart from temporary disturbing causes--of which two now operative are
(1) the gradual disappearance of the colon in its old use with the
decay of formal periodic arrangement, and (2) the encroachments of the
dash as a saver of trouble and an exponent of emotion--there are also
permanent difficulties.
Before mentioning these we observe that the four stops in the strictest
acceptation of the word (,) (;) (:) (.)--for (!) and (?) are tones
rather than stops--form a series (it might be expressed also by 1, 2,
3, 4), each member of which directs us to pause for so many units of
time before proceeding. There is essentially nothing but a quantitative
time relation between them.
The first difficulty is that this single distinction has to convey to
the reader differences of more than one kind, and not commensurable; it
has to do both logical and rhetorical work. Its logical work is helping
to make clear the grammatical relations between parts of a sentence
or paragraph and the whole or other parts: its rhetorical work is
contributing to emphasis, heightening effect, and regulating pace. It
is in vain that Beadnell lays it down: ‘The variation of pause between
the words of the same thought is a matter of rhetoric and feeling, but
punctuation depends entirely upon the variation of relations--upon
logical and grammatical principles’. The difference between these two:
The master beat the scholar with a strap.--B.
The master beat the scholar, with a strap.
is in logic nothing; but in rhetoric it is the difference between
matter-of-fact statement and indignant statement: a strap, we are to
understand from the comma, is a barbarous instrument.
Again, in the two following examples, so far as logic goes, commas
would be used in both, or semicolons in both. But the writer of the
second desires to be slow, staccato, and impressive: the writer of the
first desires to be rapid and flowing, or rather, perhaps, does not
desire to be anything other than natural.
Mathematicians have sought knowledge in figures, philosophers in
systems, logicians in subtilties, and metaphysicians in sounds.--B.
In the eclogue there must be nothing rude or vulgar; nothing fanciful
or affected; nothing subtle or abstruse.--B.
The difference is rhetorical, not logical. It is true, however, that
modern printers make an effort to be guided by logic or grammar alone;
it is impossible for them to succeed entirely; but any one who will
look at an Elizabethan book with the original stopping will see how far
they have moved: the old stopping was frankly to guide the voice in
reading aloud, while the modern is mainly to guide the mind in seeing
through the grammatical construction.
A perfect system of punctuation, then, that should be exact and
uniform, would require separate rhetorical and logical notations in
the first place. Such a system is not to be desired; the point is only
that, without it, usage must fluctuate according as one element is
allowed to interfere with the other. But a second difficulty remains,
even if we assume that rhetoric could be eliminated altogether. Our
stop series, as explained above, provides us with four degrees; but the
degrees of closeness and remoteness between the members of sentence
or paragraph are at the least ten times as many. It is easy to show
that the comma, even in its purely logical function, has not one, but
many tasks to do, which differ greatly in importance. Take the three
examples:
His method of handling the subject was ornate, learned, and
perspicuous.--B.
The removal of the comma after _learned_ makes so little difference
that it is an open question among compositors whether it should be used
or not.
The criminal, who had betrayed his associates, was a prey to remorse.
With the commas, the criminal is necessarily a certain person already
known to us: without them, we can only suppose a past state of society
to be described, in which all traitors were ashamed of themselves--a
difference of some importance.
Colonel Hutchinson, the Governor whom the King had now appointed,
having hardened his heart, resolved on sterner measures.
Omission of the comma after _appointed_ gives us two persons instead
of one, and entirely changes the meaning, making the central words
into, what they could not possibly be with the comma, an absolute
construction.
These commas, that is, have very different values; many intermediate
degrees might be added. Similarly the semicolon often separates
grammatically complete sentences, but often also the mere items of a
list, and between these extremes it marks other degrees of separation.
A perfect system for the merely logical part of punctuation, then,
would require some scores of stops instead of four. This again is not
a thing to be desired; how little, is clear from the fact that one of
our scanty supply, the colon, is now practically disused as a member
of the series, and turned on to useful work at certain odd jobs that
will be mentioned later. A series of stops that should really represent
all gradations might perhaps be worked by here and there a writer
consistently with himself; but to persuade all writers to observe the
same distinctions would be hopeless.
A third difficulty is this: not only must many tasks be performed by
one stop; the same task is necessarily performed by different stops
according to circumstances; as if polygamy were not bad enough, it
is complicated by an admixture of polyandry. We have already given
two sentences of nearly similar pattern, one of which had its parts
separated by commas, the other by semicolons, and we remarked that
the difference was there accounted for by the intrusion of rhetoric.
But the same thing occurs even when logic or grammar (it should be
explained that grammar is sometimes defined as logic applied to
speech, so that for our purposes the two are synonymous) is free from
the disturbing influence; or when that influence acts directly, not on
the stop itself that is in question, but only on one of its neighbours.
To illustrate the first case, when the stops are not affected by
rhetoric, but depend on grammar alone, we may take a short sentence
as a nucleus, elaborate it by successive additions, and observe how a
particular stop has to go on increasing its power, though it continues
to serve only the same purpose, because it must keep its predominance.
When ambition asserts the monstrous doctrine of millions made for
individuals, is not the good man indignant?
The function of the comma is to mark the division between the
subordinate and the main clauses.
When ambition asserts the monstrous doctrine of millions made for
individuals, their playthings, to be demolished at their caprice; is
not the good man indignant?
The semicolon is doing now exactly what the comma did before; but, as
commas have intruded into the clause to do the humble yet necessary
work of marking two appositions, the original comma has to dignify its
relatively more important office by converting itself into a semicolon.
When ambition asserts the monstrous doctrine of millions made for
individuals, their playthings, to be demolished at their caprice;
sporting wantonly with the rights, the peace, the comforts, the
existence, of nations, as if their intoxicated pride would, if
possible, make God’s earth their football: is not the good man
indignant?--B.
The new insertion is also an apposition, like the former ones; but,
as it contains commas within itself, it must be raised above their
level by being allowed a semicolon to part it from them. The previous
semicolon, still having the same supreme task to do, and challenged
by an upstart rival, has nothing for it but to change the regal for
the imperial crown, and become a colon. A careful observer will now
object that, on these principles, our new insertion ought to have had
an internal semicolon, to differentiate the subordinate clause, _as
if_, &c., from the mere enumeration commas that precede: in which
case the semi-colon after _caprice_ should be raised to a colon; and
then what is the newly created emperor to do? There is no papal tiara
for him to assume, the full stop being confined to the independent
sentence. The objection is quite just, and shows how soon the powers
of the four stops are exhausted if relentlessly worked. But we are
concerned only to notice that the effect of stops, even logically
considered, is relative, not absolute. It is also true that many modern
writers, if they put down a sentence like this, would be satisfied
with using commas throughout; the old-fashioned air of the colon will
hardly escape notice. But the whole arrangement is according to the
compositor’s art in its severer form.
A specimen of the merely indirect action of rhetoric may be more
shortly disposed of. In a sentence already quoted--
Mathematicians have sought knowledge in figures, philosophers in
systems, logicians in subtilties, and metaphysicians in sounds--
suppose the writer to have preferred for impressive effect, as we said
he might have, to use semicolons instead of commas. The immediate
result of that would be that what before could be left to the reader
to do for himself (i. e., the supplying of the words _have sought
knowledge_ in each member) will in presence of the semicolon require to
be done to the eye by commas, and the sentence will run:
Mathematicians have sought knowledge in figures; philosophers, in
systems; logicians, in subtilties; and metaphysicians, in sounds.
But, lest we should be thought too faithful followers of the logicians,
we will now assume that our point has been sufficiently proved: the
difficulties of punctuation, owing to the interaction of different
purposes, and the inadequacy of the instruments, are formidable enough
to be worth grappling with.
We shall now only make three general remarks before proceeding to
details. The first is implied in what has been already said: the work
of punctuation is mainly to show, or hint at, the grammatical relation
between words, phrases, clauses, and sentences; but it must not be
forgotten that stops also serve to regulate pace, to throw emphasis
on particular words and give them significance, and to indicate tone.
These effects are subordinate, and must not be allowed to conflict with
the main object; but as the grammatical relation may often be shown in
more than one way, that way can be chosen which serves another purpose
best.
Secondly, it is a sound principle that as few stops should be used as
will do the work. There is a theory that scientific or philosophic
matter should be punctuated very fully and exactly, whereas mere
literary work can do with a much looser system. This is a mistake,
except so far as scientific and philosophic writers may desire to give
an impressive effect by retarding the pace; that is legitimate; but
otherwise, all that is printed should have as many stops as help the
reader, and not more. A resolution to put in all the stops that can be
correctly used is very apt to result in the appearance of some that can
only be used incorrectly; some of our quotations from Huxley and Mr.
Balfour may be thought to illustrate this. And whereas slight stopping
may venture on small irregularities, full stopping that is incorrect
is also unpardonable. The objection to full stopping that is correct
is the discomfort inflicted upon readers, who are perpetually being
checked like a horse with a fidgety driver.
Thirdly, every one should make up his mind not to depend on his stops.
They are to be regarded as devices, not for saving him the trouble of
putting his words into the order that naturally gives the required
meaning, but for saving his reader the moment or two that would
sometimes, without them, be necessarily spent on reading the sentence
twice over, once to catch the general arrangement, and again for the
details. It may almost be said that what reads wrongly if the stops are
removed is radically bad; stops are not to alter meaning, but merely
to show it up. Those who are learning to write should make a practice
of putting down all they want to say without stops first. What then,
on reading over, naturally arranges itself contrary to the intention
should be not punctuated, but altered; and the stops should be as few
as possible, consistently with the recognized rules. At this point
those rules should follow; but adequately explained and illustrated,
they would require a volume; and we can only speak of common abuses and
transgressions of them.
First comes what may be called for short the spot-plague--the tendency
to make full-stops do all the work. The comma, most important, if
slightest, of all stops, cannot indeed be got rid of, though even for
that the full-stop is substituted when possible; but the semicolon
is now as much avoided by many writers as the colon (in its old use)
by most. With the semicolon go most of the conjunctions. Now there
is something to be said for the change, or the two changes: the
old-fashioned period, or long complex sentence, carefully worked out
with a view to symmetry, balance, and degrees of subordination, though
it has a dignity of its own, is formal, stiff, and sometimes frigid;
the modern newspaper vice of long sentences either rambling or involved
(far commoner in newspapers than the spot-plague) is inexpressibly
wearisome and exasperating. Simplification is therefore desirable. But
journalists now and then, and writers with more literary ambition than
ability generally, overdo the thing till it becomes an affectation;
it is then little different from Victor Hugo’s device of making every
sentence a paragraph, and our last state is worse than our first.
Patronizing archness, sham ingenuousness, spasmodic interruption,
scrappy argument, dry monotony, are some of the resulting impressions.
We shall have to trouble the reader with at least one rather long
specimen; the spot-plague in its less virulent form, that is, when it
is caused not by pretentiousness or bad taste, but merely by desire
to escape from the period, does not declare itself very rapidly. What
follows is a third or so of a literary review, of which the whole is
in exactly the same style, and which might have been quoted entire
for the same purpose. It will be seen that it shows twenty full-stops
to one semicolon and no colons. Further, between no two of the twenty
sentences is there a conjunction.
The life of Lord Chatham, which has just appeared in three volumes,
by Dr. Albert v. Ruville of the University of Halle deserves special
notice. It is much the most complete life which has yet appeared of
one of the most commanding figures in English history. It exhibits
that thoroughness of method which characterized German historical
writings of other days, and which has not lately been conspicuous.
It is learned without being dull, and is free from that uncritical
spirit of hostility to England which impairs the value of so many
recent German histories. That portion which deals with the closing
years of George II and with events following the accession of George
III is exceptionally interesting. One of the greatest misfortunes that
ever happened to England was the resignation of Pitt in 1761. It was
caused, as we all know, by difference of opinion with his colleagues
on the Spanish question. Ferdinand VI of Spain died in 1759, and was
succeeded by King Charles III, one of the most remarkable princes of
the House of Bourbon. This sovereign was an enthusiastic adherent of
the policy which found expression in the celebrated family compact.
On August 15, 1761, a secret convention was concluded between
France and Spain, under which Spain engaged to declare war against
England in May, 1762. Pitt quite understood the situation. He saw
that instant steps should be taken to meet the danger, and proposed
at a Cabinet held on October 2 that war should be declared against
Spain. Newcastle, Hardwicke, Anson, Bute, and Mansfield combated this
proposal, which was rejected, and two days afterwards Pitt resigned.
His scheme was neither immature nor ill-considered. He had made his
preparations to strike a heavy blow at the enemy, to seize the Isthmus
of Panama, thereby securing a port in the Pacific, and separating the
Spanish provinces of Mexico and Peru. He had planned an expedition
against Havana and the Philippine Islands, where no adequate
resistance could have been made; and, had he remained in office, there
is but little doubt that the most precious possessions of Spain in the
New World would have been incorporated in the British Empire. When he
left the Cabinet all virility seems to have gone out of it with him.
As he had foreseen, Spain declared war on England at a suitable moment
for herself, and the unfortunate negotiations were opened leading to
the Peace of Paris in 1763, which was pregnant with many disastrous
results for England. The circumstances which led to the resignation
of Pitt are dealt with by Dr. v. Ruville much more lucidly than by
most historians. This portion of his work is the more interesting
because of the pains he takes to clear George III from the charge of
conspiring against his great Minister.--_Times._
The reader’s experience has probably been that the constant fresh
starts are at first inspiriting, that about half-way he has had
quite enough of the novelty, and that he is intensely grateful, when
the solitary semicolon comes into sight, for a momentary lapse into
ordinary gentle progress. Writers like this may almost be suspected of
taking literally a summary piece of advice that we have lately seen
in a book on English composition: _Never use a semicolon when you can
employ a full-stop._ Beadnell lays down a law that at first sight seems
to amount to the same thing: _The notion of parting short independent
sentences otherwise than by a full-stop, rests upon no rational
foundation, and leads to endless perplexities._ But his practice
clears him of the imputation: he is saved by the ambiguity of the word
_independent_. There are grammatical dependence, and dependence of
thought. Of all those ‘little hard round unconnected things’, in the
_Times_ review, that ‘seem to come upon one as shot would descend from
a shot-making tower’ (Sir Arthur Helps), hardly one is not dependent
on its neighbours in the more liberal sense, though each is a complete
sentence and independent in grammar. Now one important use of stops
is to express the degrees of thought dependence. A style that groups
several complete sentences together, by the use of semicolons, because
they are more closely connected in thought, is far more restful and
easy--for the reader, that is--than the style that leaves him to do
the grouping for himself; and yet it is free from the formality of the
period, which consists, not of grammatically independent sentences, but
of a main sentence with many subordinate clauses. We have not space for
a long example of the group system rightly applied; most good modern
writers free from the craving to be up to date will supply them on
every page; but a very short quotation may serve to emphasize the
difference between group and spot-plague principles. The essence of the
latter is that almost the only stops used are full-stops and commas,
that conjunctions are rare, and that when a conjunction does occur the
comma is generally used, not the full-stop. What naturally follows is
an arrangement of this kind:
The sheil of Ravensnuik was, for the present at least, at his
disposal. The foreman or ‘grieve’ at the Home Farm was anxious to be
friendly, but even if he lost that place, Dan Weir knew that there was
plenty of others.--CROCKETT.
(To save trouble, let it be stated that the sheil is a dependency of
the Home Farm, and not contrasted with or opposed to it.) Here there
are three grammatically independent sentences, between the two latter
of which the conjunction _but_ is inserted. It follows from spot-plague
principles that there will be a full-stop at the end of the first,
and a comma at the end of the second. With the group system it is not
so simple a matter; before we can place the stops, we have to inquire
how the three sentences are connected in thought. It then appears
that the friendliness of the grieve is mentioned to account for the
sheil’s being at disposal; that is, there is a close connexion, though
no conjunction, between the first and the second sentences. Further,
the birds in the bush of the third sentence are contrasted, not with
the second sentence’s friendliness, but with the first sentence’s
bird in the hand (which, however, is accounted for by the second
sentence’s friendliness). To group rightly, then, we must take care,
quite reversing the author’s punctuation, that the first and second
are separated by a stop of less power than that which separates the
third from them. Comma, semicolon, would do it, if the former were
sufficient between two grammatically independent sentences not joined
by a conjunction; it obviously is not sufficient here (though in some
such pairs it might be); so, instead of comma, semicolon, we must use
semicolon, full-stop; and the sentence will run, with its true meaning
much more clearly given:
The sheil of Ravensnuik was, for the present at least, at his
disposal; the foreman or ‘grieve’ at the Home Farm was anxious to be
friendly. But even if he lost that place, Dan Weir knew that there was
plenty of others.
The group system gives more trouble to the writer or compositor, and
less to the reader; the compositor cannot be expected to like it, if
the burden falls on him; inferior writers cannot be expected to choose
it either, perhaps; but the good writers who do choose it no doubt find
that after a short time the work comes to do itself by instinct.
We need now only add two or three short specimens, worse, though
from their shortness less remarkable, than the _Times_ extract. They
are not specially selected as bad; but it may be hoped that by their
juxtaposition they may have some deterrent effect.
So Dan opened the door a little and the dog came out as if nothing had
happened. It was now clear. The light was that of late evening. The
air hardly more than cool. A gentle fanning breeze came from the North
and....--CROCKETT.
Allies must have common sentiments, a common policy, common interests.
Russia’s disposition is aggressive. Her policy is the closed door.
Her interests lie in monopoly. With our country it is precisely the
opposite. Japan may conquer, but she will not aggress. Russia may be
defeated, but she will not abandon her aggression. With such a country
an alliance is beyond the conception even of a dream.--_Times._
Upon a hillside, a great swelling hillside, high up near the clouds,
lay a herd lad. Little more than a boy he was. He did not know much,
but he wanted to know more. He was not very good, but he wanted to be
better. He was lonely, but of that he was not aware. On the whole he
was content up there on his great hillside.--CROCKETT.
To be popular you have to be interested, or appear to be interested,
in other people. And there are so many in this world in whom it
is impossible to be interested. So many for whom the most skilful
hypocrisy cannot help us to maintain a semblance of interest.--_Daily
Telegraph._
Of course a girl so pretty as my Miss Anne could not escape having
many suitors, especially as all over the countryside Sir Tempest had
the name of being something of a skinflint. And skinflints are always
rich, as is well known.--CROCKETT.
The last sentence here is a mere comment on what is itself only an
appendage, the clause introduced by _especially_; it has therefore
no right to the dignity of a separate sentence. But it can hardly be
mended without some alteration of words as well as stops; for instance,
put a semicolon after suitors, write _moreover_ for _especially as_,
and put only a comma after _skinflint_; the right proportion would then
be secured.
The spot-plague, as we have shown, sometimes results in illogicality;
it need not do so, however; when it does, the fault lies with the
person who, accepting its principles, does not arrange his sentences
to suit them. It is a new-fashioned and, in our opinion, unpleasant
system, but quite compatible with correctness.
Over-stopping, to which we now proceed, is on the contrary
old-fashioned; but it is equally compatible with correctness. Though
old-fashioned, it still lingers obstinately enough to make some slight
protest desirable; the superstition that every possible stop should be
inserted in scientific and other such writing misleads compositors,
and their example affects literary authors who have not much ear. Any
one who finds himself putting down several commas close to one another
should reflect that he is making himself disagreeable, and question his
conscience, as severely as we ought to do about disagreeable conduct in
real life, whether it is necessary. He will find that the parenthetic
or emphatic effect given to an adverbial phrase by putting a comma
at each end of it is often of no value whatever to his meaning; in
other words, that he can make himself agreeable by merely putting off
a certain pompous solemnity; erasing a pair of commas may make the
difference in writing that is made in conversation by a change of tone
from the didactic to the courteous. Sometimes the abundance of commas
is not so easily reduced; a change in the order of words, the omission
of a needless adverb or conjunction, even the recasting of a sentence,
may be necessary. But it is a safe statement that a gathering of commas
(except on certain lawful occasions, as in a list) is a suspicious
circumstance. The sentence should at least be read aloud, and if it
halts or jolts some change or other should be made.
The smallest portion possible of curious interest had been
awakened within me, and, at last, I asked myself, within my own
mind....--BORROW.
None of the last three commas is wanted; those round _at last_ are very
unpleasant, and they at least should be omitted.
In questions of trade and finance, questions which, owing, perhaps, to
their increasing intricacy, seem....--BRYCE.
_Perhaps_ can do very well without commas.
It is, however, already plain enough that, unless, indeed, some great
catastrophe should upset all their calculations, the authorities have
very little intention....--_Times._
_Indeed_ can do without commas, if it cannot itself be done without.
Jeannie, too, is, just occasionally, like a good girl out of a book by
a sentimental lady-novelist.--_Times._
If _just_ is omitted, there need be no commas round _occasionally_.
There may be a value in _just_; but hardly enough to compensate for the
cruel jerking at the bit to which the poor reader is subjected by a
remorseless driver.
Thus, their work, however imperfect and faulty, judged by modern
lights, it may have been, brought them face to face with....--HUXLEY.
The comma after _thus_ is nothing if not pompous. And another can be
got rid of by putting _it may have been_ before _judged by modern
lights_.
Lilias suggested the advice which, of all others, seemed most suited
to the occasion, that, yielding, namely, to the circumstances of their
situation, they should watch....--SCOTT.
Omit _namely_ and its commas.
Shakespeare, it is true, had, as I have said, as respects England, the
privilege which only first-comers enjoy.--LOWELL.
A good example of the warning value of commas. None of these can
be dispensed with, since there are no less than three parenthetic
qualifications to the sentence. But the crowd of commas ought to have
told the writer how bad his sentence was; it is like an obstacle race.
It should begin, It is true that ..., which disposes of one obstacle.
_As I have said_ can be given a separate sentence afterwards--So much
has been said before.
Private banks and capitalists constitute the main bulk of the
subscribers, and, apparently, they are prepared to go on subscribing
indefinitely.--_Times._
Putting commas round _apparently_ amounts to the insertion of a
further clause, such as, Though you would not think they could be such
fools. But what the precise contents of the further clause may be is
problematic. At any rate, a writer should not invite us to read between
the lines unless he is sure of two things: what he wants to be read
there; and that we are likely to be willing and able readers of it. The
same is true of many words that are half adverbs and half conjunctions,
like _therefore_. We have the right to comma them off if we like; but,
unless it is done with a definite purpose, it produces perplexity as
well as heaviness. In the first of the next two examples, there is
no need whatever for the commas. In the second, the motive is clear:
having the choice between commas and no commas, the reporter uses them
because he so secures a pause after _he_, and gives the word that
emphasis which in the speech as delivered doubtless made the _I_ that
it represents equivalent to _I for my part_.
Both Tom and John knew this; and, therefore, John--the soft-hearted
one--kept out of the way.--TROLLOPE.
It would not be possible to sanction an absolutely unlimited
expenditure on the Volunteers; the burden on the tax-payers would be
too great. He, therefore, wished that those who knew most about the
Volunteers would make up their minds as to the direction in which
there should be development.--_Times._
After _for_ and _and_ beginning a sentence commas are often used
that are hardly even correct. It may be suspected that writers allow
themselves to be deceived by the false analogy of sentences in which
the _and_ or _for_ is immediately followed by a subordinate clause
or phrase that has a right to its two commas. When there is no such
interruption, the only possible plea for the comma is that it is not
logical but rhetorical, and conveys some archness or other special
significance such as is hardly to be found in our two examples:
The lawn, the soft, smooth slope, the ... bespeak an amount of elegant
comfort within, that would serve for a palace. This indication is
not without warrant; for, within it is a house of refinement and
luxury.--DICKENS.
And, it is true that these were the days of mental and moral
fermentation.--HUTTON.
We shall class here also, assuming for the present that the rhetorical
plea may be allowed even when there is no logical justification for a
stop, two sentences in which the copula _is_, standing between subject
and complement, has commas on each side of it. Impressiveness is what
is aimed at; it seems to us a tawdry device for giving one’s sentence
an _ex cathedra_ air:
The reason why the world lacks unity, is, because man is disunited
with himself.--EMERSON.
The charm in Nelson’s history, is, the unselfish greatness.--EMERSON.
Many other kinds of over-stopping might be illustrated; but we have
intentionally confined ourselves here to specimens in which grammatical
considerations do not arise, and the sentence is equally correct
whether the stops are inserted or not. Sentences in which over-stopping
outrages grammar more or less decidedly will be incidentally treated
later on. Meanwhile we make the general remark that ungrammatical
insertion of stops is a high crime and misdemeanour, whereas
ungrammatical omission of them is often venial, and in some cases
even desirable. Nevertheless the over-stopping that offends against
nothing but taste has its counterpart in under-stopping of the same
sort. And it must be added that nothing so easily exposes a writer
to the suspicion of being uneducated as omission of commas against
nearly universal custom. In the examples that follow, every one will
see at the first glance where commas are wanting. When it is remembered
that, as we have implied, an author has the right to select the degree
of intensity, or scale, of his punctuation, it can hardly be said
that grammar actually demands any stops in these sentences taken by
themselves. Yet the effect, unless we choose to assume misprints, as we
naturally do in isolated cases, is horrible.
It may be asked can further depreciation be afforded.--_Times._
I believe you used to live in Warwickshire at Willowsmere Court did
you not?--CORELLI.
The hills slope gently to the cliffs which overhang the bay of Naples
and they seem to bear on their outstretched arms a rich offering
of Nature’s fairest gifts for the queen city of the south.--F. M.
CRAWFORD.
‘You made a veritable sensation Lucio!’ ‘Did I?’ He laughed. ‘You
flatter me Geoffrey.’--CORELLI.
I like your swiftness of action Geoffrey.--CORELLI.
Good heavens man, there are no end of lords and ladies who
will....--CORELLI.
Although we are, when we turn from taste to grammar, on slightly firmer
ground, it will be seen that there are many debatable questions; and
we shall have to use some technical terms. As usual, only those points
will be attended to which our observation has shown to be important.
1. The substantival clause.
Subordinate clauses are sentences containing a subject and predicate,
but serving the purpose in the main sentence (to which they are
sometimes joined by a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun,
but sometimes without any separate and visible link) of single words,
namely, of noun, adjective, or adverb; they are called respectively
substantival, adjectival, or adverbial clauses. Examples:
Substantival. He asked _what I should do_. (_my plan_, noun)
Adjectival. The man _who acts honestly_ is respected. (_honest_,
adjective)
Adverbial. I shall see you _when the sun next rises_. (_to-morrow_,
adverb)
Now there is no rule that subordinate clauses must be separated from
the main sentence by a stop; that depends on whether they are essential
parts of the proposition (when stops are generally wrong), or more or
less separable accidents (when commas are more or less required). But
what we wish to draw attention to is a distinction in this respect,
very generally disregarded, between the substantival clause and the two
other kinds. When the others are omitted, though the desired meaning
may be spoilt, the grammar generally remains uninjured; a complete,
though not perhaps valuable sentence is left. _The man is respected_,
_I shall see you_, are as much sentences alone as they were with the
adjectival and adverbial clauses. With substantival clauses this is
seldom true; they are usually the subjects, objects, or complements,
of the verbs, that is, are grammatically essential. _He asked_ is
meaningless by itself. (Even if the point is that he asked and did not
answer, _things_, or _something_, has to be supplied in thought.) Now
it is a principle, not without exceptions, but generally sound, that
the subject, object, or complement, is not to be separated from its
verb even by a comma (though _two_ commas belonging to an inserted
parenthetic clause or phrase or word may intervene). It follows that
there is no logical or grammatical justification, though there may
be a rhetorical one, for the comma so frequently placed before the
_that_ of an indirect statement. Our own opinion (which is, however,
contrary to the practice of most compositors) is that this should
always be omitted except when the writer has a very distinct reason for
producing rhetorical impressiveness by an unusual pause. Some very ugly
overstopping would thus be avoided.
Yet there, too, we find, that character has its problems to
solve.--MEREDITH.
We know, that, in the individual man, consciousness grows.--HUXLEY.
And it is said, that, on a visitor once asking to see his library,
Descartes led him....--HUXLEY.
The general opinion however was, that, if Bute had been early
practised in debate, he might have become an impressive
speaker.--MACAULAY.
The comma before _whether_ in the next is actually misleading; we are
tempted to take as adverbial what is really a substantival clause,
object to the verbal noun _indifference_:
The book ... had merits due to the author’s indifference, whether he
showed bad taste or not, provided he got nearer to the impression he
wished to convey.--_Speaker._
Grammar, however, would afford some justification for distinguishing
between the substantival clause as subject, object, or complement, and
the substantival clause in apposition with one of these. Though there
should decidedly be no comma in _He said that ..._, it is strictly
defensible in _It is said, that...._ The _that_-clause in the latter
is explanatory of, and in apposition with, _it_; and the ordinary
sign of apposition is a comma. Similarly, _My opinion is that_: _It
is my opinion, that_. But as there seems to be no value whatever in
the distinction, our advice is to do without the comma in all ordinary
cases of either kind. A useful and reasonable exception is made in
some manuals; for instance, in Bigelow’s _Manual of Punctuation_ we
read: ‘Clauses like “It is said”, introducing several propositions
or quotations, each preceded by the word _that_, should have a comma
before the first _that_. But if a single proposition or quotation only
is given, no comma is necessary. Example:
Philosophers assert, that Nature is unlimited in her operations, that
she has inexhaustible treasures in reserve, that....’
Anything that shows the reader what he is to expect, and so saves
him the trouble of coming back to revise his first impressions, is
desirable if there is no strong reason against it.
A more important distinction is this: _He said_, &c., may have
for its object, and _It is said_, &c., for its (virtual) subject,
either the actual words said, or a slight rearrangement of them (not
necessarily to the eye, but at least to the mind), which makes them
more clearly part of the grammatical construction, and turns them
into true subordinate clauses. Thus _He told her, You are in danger_
may be kept, but is usually altered to _He told her that she was in
danger_, or to _He told her she was in danger_. In the first, _You
are in danger_ is not properly a subordinate clause, but a sentence,
which may be said to be in apposition with _these words_ understood.
In the second and third alike, the altered words are a subordinate
substantival clause, the object to _told_. It follows that when the
actual words are given as such (this is sometimes only to be known by
the tone: compare _I tell you, I will come_, and _I tell you I will
come_), a comma should be inserted; whereas, when they are meant as
mere reported or indirect speech, it should be omitted. Actual words
given as such should also be begun with a capital letter; and if they
consist of a compound sentence, or of several sentences, a comma will
not suffice for their introduction; a colon, a colon and dash, or a
full stop, with quotation marks always in the last case, and usually in
the others, will be necessary; but these are distinctions that need not
be considered here in detail.
Further, it must be remembered that substantival clauses include
indirect questions as well as indirect statements, and that the same
rules will apply to them. The two following examples are very badly
stopped:
(_a_) Add to all this that he died in his thirty-seventh year: and
then ask, If it be strange that his poems are imperfect?--CARLYLE.
Accommodation of the stops to the words would give:
and then ask if it be strange that his poems are imperfect.
And accommodation of the words to the stops would give:
and then ask, Is it strange that his poems are imperfect?
(_b_) It may be asked can further depreciation be afforded.--_Times._
The two correct alternatives here are similarly:
It may be asked, Can further depreciation be afforded?
It may be asked whether further depreciation can be afforded.
As the sentences stood originally, we get in the Carlyle a most
theatrical, and in the _Times_ a most slovenly effect.
2. The verb and its subject, object, or complement.
Our argument against the common practice of placing a comma before
substantival _that_-clauses and others like them was, in brief: This
sort of _that_-clause is simply equivalent to a noun; that noun is,
with few exceptions, the subject, object, or complement, to a verb;
and between things so closely and essentially connected as the verb
and any of these no stop should intervene (unless for very strong and
special rhetorical reasons). This last principle, that the verb and its
essential belongings must not be parted, was merely assumed. We think
it will be granted by any one who reads the next two examples. It is
felt at once that a writer who will break the principle with so little
excuse as here will shrink from nothing.
So poor Byron was dethroned, as I had prophesied he would be, though I
had little idea that his humiliation, would be brought about by one,
whose sole strength consists in setting people to sleep.--BORROW.
He was, moreover, not an unkind man; but the crew of the _Bounty_,
mutinied against him, and set him half naked in an open boat.--BORROW.
Very little better than these, but each with some perceptible motive,
are the next six:
Depreciation of him, fetched up at a stroke the glittering armies of
her enthusiasm.--MEREDITH.
Opposition to him, was comparable to the stand of blocks of timber
before a flame.--MEREDITH.
In each of these the comma acts as an accent upon _him_, and is purely
rhetorical and illogical.
Such women as you, are seldom troubled with remorse.--CORELLI.
Here the comma guards us from taking _you are_ together. We have
already said that this device is illegitimate. Such sentences should be
recast; for instance, Women like you are seldom, &c.
The thick foliage of the branching oaks and elms in my grounds
afforded grateful shade and repose to the tired body, while the
tranquil loveliness of the woodland and meadow scenery, comforted and
soothed the equally tired mind.--CORELLI.
With them came young boys and little children, while on either side,
maidens white-veiled and rose-wreathed, paced demurely, swinging
silver censers to and fro.--CORELLI.
Swift’s view of human nature, is too black to admit of any hopes of
their millennium.--L. STEPHEN.
_Loveliness_, _maidens_, _view_, the strict subjects, have adjectival
phrases attached after them. The temptation to insert the comma is
comprehensible, but slight, and should have been resisted.
In the three that come next, the considerable length of the subject,
it must be admitted, makes a comma comforting; it gives us a sort of
assurance that we have kept our hold on the sentence. It is illogical,
however, and, owing to the importance of not dividing subject from
verb, unpleasantly illogical. In each case the comfort would be equally
effective if it were legitimized by the insertion of a comma before
as well as after the clause or phrase at the end of which the present
comma stands. The extra commas would be after _earth_, _victims_,
_Schleiden_.
To see so many thousand wretches burdening the earth when such as her
die, makes me think God did never intend life for a blessing.--SWIFT.
An order of the day expressing sympathy with the families of the
victims and confidence in the Government, was adopted.--_Times._
The famous researches of Schwann and Schleiden in 1837 and the
following years, founded the modern science of histology.--HUXLEY.
It may be said that it is ‘fudging’ to find an excuse, as we have
proposed to do, for a stop that we mean really to do something
different from its ostensible work. But the answer is that with few
tools and many tasks to do much fudging is in fact necessary.
A special form of this, in protest against which we shall give five
examples, each from a different well-known author, is when the subject
includes and ends with a defining relative clause, after which an
illogical comma is placed. As the relative clause is of the defining
kind (a phrase that has been explained[12]), it is practically
impossible to fudge in these sentences by putting a comma before the
relative pronoun. Even in the first sentence the length of the relative
clause is no sufficient excuse; and in all the others we should abolish
the comma without hesitation.
The same quickness of sympathy which had served him well in his work
among the East End poor, enabled him to pour feeling into the figures
of a bygone age.--BRYCE.
One of its agents is our will, but that which expresses itself in our
will, is stronger than our will.--EMERSON.
The very interesting class of objects to which these belong, do not
differ from the rest of the material universe.--BALFOUR.
And thus, the great men who were identified with the war, began slowly
to edge over to the party....--L. STEPHEN.
In becoming a merchant-gild the body of citizens who formed the
‘town’, enlarged their powers of civic legislation.--J. R. GREEN.
In the two sentences that now follow from Mr. Morley, the offending
comma of the first parts _centre_, which is what grammarians call the
oblique complement, from its verb _made_; the offending comma of the
second parts the direct object _groups_ from its verb _drew_. Every one
will allow that the sentences are clumsy; most people will allow that
the commas are illogical. As for us, we do not say that, if the words
are to be kept as they are, the commas should be omitted; but we do say
that a good writer, when he found himself reduced to illogical commas,
should have taken the trouble to rearrange his words.
De Maistre was never more clear-sighted than when he made a vigorous
and deliberate onslaught upon Bacon, the centre of his movement
against revolutionary principles.--MORLEY.
In saying that the Encyclopaedists began a political work, what
is meant is that they drew into the light of new ideas, groups of
institutions, usages, and arrangements which affected the well-being
of France, as closely as nutrition affected the health and strength of
an individual Frenchman.--MORLEY.
It may be added, by way of concluding this section, that the insertion
of a comma in the middle of an absolute construction, which is capable,
as was shown in the sentence about Colonel Hutchinson and the governor,
of having very bad results indeed, is only a particular instance
and _reductio ad absurdum_ of inserting a comma between subject and
verb. The comma in the absolute construction is so recognized a trap
that it might have been thought needless to mention it; the following
instances, however, will show that a warning is even now necessary.
Sir E. Seymour, having replied for the Navy, the Duke of Connaught, in
replying for the Army, said....--_Times._
Thus _got_, having been by custom poorly substituted for _gat_,
so that we say He got away, instead of He gat away, many persons
abbreviate _gotten_ into _got_, saying He had got, for He had
gotten.--R. G. WHITE.
The garrison, having been driven from the outer line of defences
on July 30, Admiral Witoft considered it high time to make a
sortie.--_Times._
But that didn’t last long; for Dr. Blimber, happening to change the
position of his tight plump legs, as if he were going to get up, Toots
swiftly vanished.--DICKENS.
3. The adjectival clause.
This, strictly speaking, does the work of an adjective in the sentence.
It usually begins with a relative pronoun, but sometimes with a
relative adverb. The man _who does not breathe_ dies, is equivalent to
The _unbreathing_ man dies. The place _where we stand_ is holy ground,
is equivalent to _This_ place is holy ground. But we shall include
under the phrase all clauses that begin with a relative, though some
relative clauses are not adjectival, because a division of all into
defining clauses on the one hand, and non-defining or commenting on the
other, is more easily intelligible than the division into adjectival
and non-adjectival. This distinction is more fully gone into in the
chapter on Syntax, where it is suggested that _that_, when possible,
is the appropriate relative for defining, and _which_ for non-defining
clauses. That, however, is a debatable point, and quite apart from the
question of stopping that arises here. Examples of the two types are:
(Defining) The river that (which) runs through London is turbid.
(Commenting) The Thames, which runs through London, is turbid.
It will be seen that in the first the relative clause is an answer to
the imaginary question, ‘Which river?’; that is, it defines the noun
to which it belongs. In the second, such a question as ‘Which Thames?’
is hardly conceivable; the relative clause gives us a piece of extra
and non-essential information, an independent comment. The two types
are not always so easily distinguished as in these examples constructed
for the purpose. What we wish here to say is that it would contribute
much to clearness of style if writers would always make up their minds
whether they intend a definition or a comment, and would invariably use
no commas with a defining clause, and two commas with a non-defining.
All the examples that follow are in our opinion wrong. The first
three are of defining relative clauses wrongly preceded by commas;
the second three of commenting relative clauses wrongly not preceded
by commas. The last of all there may be a doubt about. If the long
clause beginning with _which_ is intended merely to show how great the
weariness is, and _which_ is practically equivalent to _so great that_,
it may be called a defining clause, and the omission of the comma is
right. But if the _which_ really acts as a mere connexion to introduce
a new fact that the correspondent wishes to record, the clause is
non-defining, and the comma ought according to our rule to be inserted
before it.
The man, _who_ thinketh in his heart and hath the power straightway
(very straightway) to go and do it, is not so common in any
country.--CROCKETT.
Now everyone must do after his kind, be he asp or angel, and these
must. The question, _which_ a wise man and a student of modern history
will ask, is, what that kind is.--EMERSON.
Those, _who_ are urging with most ardour what are called the
greatest benefits of mankind, are narrow, self-pleasing, conceited
men.--EMERSON.
A reminder is being sent to all absent members of the Nationalist
party that their attendance at Westminster is urgently required next
week _when_ the Budget will be taken on Monday.--_Times._
The Marshall Islands will pass from the control of the Jaluit Company
under that of the German colonial authorities _who_ will bear the cost
of administration and will therefore collect all taxes.--_Times._
The causes of this popularity are, no doubt, in part, the extreme
simplicity of the reasoning on which the theory rests, in part its
extreme plausibility, in part, perhaps, the nature of the result
_which_ is commonly thought to be speculatively interesting without
being practically inconvenient.--BALFOUR.
Naval critics ... are showing signs of weariness _which_ even the
reported appearance of Admiral Nebogatoff in the Malacca Strait is
unable to remove.--_Times._
4. The adverb, adverbial phrase, and adverbial clause.
In writing of substantival and adjectival clauses, our appeal was for
more logical precision than is usual. We said that the comma habitual
before substantival clauses was in most cases unjustifiable, and should
be omitted even at the cost of occasional slight discomfort. We said
that with one division of adjectival, or rather relative clauses,
commas should always be used, and with another they should always be
omitted. With the adverbial clauses, phrases, and words, on the other
hand, our appeal is on the whole for less precision; we recommend that
less precision should be aimed at, at least, though more attained, than
at present. Certain kinds of laxity here are not merely venial, but
laudable: certain other kinds are damning evidence of carelessness or
bad taste or bad education. It is not here a mere matter of choosing
between one right and one wrong way; there are many degrees.
_Now_ is an adverb; _in the house_ is usually an adverbial phrase; _if
I know it_ is an adverbial clause. Logic and grammar never prohibit the
separating of any such expressions from the rest of their sentence--by
two commas if they stand in the middle of it, by one if they begin or
end it. But use of the commas tends, especially with a single word,
but also with a phrase or clause, though in inverse proportion to its
length, to modify the meaning. _I cannot do it now_ means no more than
it says: _I cannot do it, now_ conveys a further assurance that the
speaker would have been delighted to do it yesterday or will be quite
willing tomorrow. This distinction, generally recognized with the
single word, applies also to clauses; and writers of judgement should
take the fullest freedom in such matters, allowing no superstition
about ‘subordinate clauses’ to force upon them commas that they feel to
be needless, but inclining always when in doubt to spare readers the
jerkiness of overstopping. It is a question for rhetoric alone, not for
logic, so long as the proper allowance of commas, if any, is given;
what the proper allowance is, has been explained a few lines back. We
need not waste time on exemplifying this simple principle; there is so
far no real laxity; the writer is simply free.
Laxity comes in when we choose, guided by nothing more authoritative
than euphony, to stop an adverbial phrase or adverbial clause, but
not to stop it at both ends, though it stands in the middle of its
sentence. This is an unmistakable offence against logic, and lays one
open to the condemnation of examiners and precisians. But the point we
wish to make is that in a very large class of sentences the injury to
meaning is so infinitesimal, and the benefit to sound so considerable,
that we do well to offend. The class is so large that only one example
need be given:
But with their triumph over the revolt, Cranmer and his colleagues
advanced yet more boldly.--J. R. GREEN.
The adverbial phrase is _with their triumph over the revolt_. _But_
does not belong to it, but to the whole sentence. The writer has no
defence whatever as against the logician; nevertheless, his reader will
be grateful to him. The familiar intrusion of a comma after initial
_And_ and _For_ where there is no intervening clause to justify it, of
which we gave examples when we spoke of overstopping, comes probably by
false analogy from the unpleasant pause that rigid punctuation has made
common in sentences of this type.
Laxity once introduced, however, has to be carefully kept within
bounds. It may be first laid down absolutely that when an adverbial
clause is to be stopped, but incompletely stopped, the omitted stop
must always be the one at the beginning, and never the one at the end.
Transgression of this is quite intolerable; we shall give several
instances at the end of the section to impress the fact. But it is also
true that even the omission of the beginning comma looks more and more
slovenly the further we get from the type of our above cited sentence.
The quotations immediately following are arranged from the less to the
more slovenly.
His health gave way, and _at the age of fifty-six_, he died
prematurely in harness at Quetta.--_Times._
If mankind was in the condition of believing nothing, and _without a
bias in any particular direction_, was merely on the look-out for some
legitimate creed, it would not, I conceive, be possible....--BALFOUR.
The party _then_, consisted of a man and his wife, of his
mother-in-law and his sister.--F. M. CRAWFORD.
These men _in their honorary capacity_, already have sufficient work
to perform.--_Guernsey Evening Press._
It will be observed that in the sentence from Mr. Balfour the chief
objection to omitting the comma between _and_ and _without_ is that we
are taken off on a false scent, it being natural at first to suppose
that we are to supply _was_ again; this can only happen when we are in
the middle of a sentence, and not at the beginning as in the pattern
Cranmer sentence.
The gross negligence or ignorance betrayed by giving the first and
omitting the second comma will be convincingly shown by this array of
sentences from authors of all degrees.
It is not strange that the sentiment of loyalty should, _from the day
of his accession_ have begun to revive.--MACAULAY.
Was it possible that having loved she should not so rejoice, or that,
_rejoicing_ she should not be proud of her love?--TROLLOPE.
I venture to suggest that, _had Lord Hugh himself been better informed
in the matter_ he would scarcely have placed himself....--_Times._
The necessary consequence being that the law, _to uphold the
restraints of which such unusual devices are employed_ is in practice
destitute of the customary sanctions.--_Times._
The view held ... is that, _owing to the constant absence of the
Commander-in-Chief on tour_ it is necessary that....--_Times._
The master of the house, to whom, _as in duty bound_ I communicated my
intention....--BORROW.
After this victory, Hunyadi, _with his army_ entered Belgrade, to the
great joy of the Magyars.--BORROW.
M. Kossuth declares that, _until the King calls on the majority to
take office with its own programme_ chaos will prevail.--_Times._
A love-affair, _to be conducted with spirit and enterprise_ should
always bristle with opposition and difficulty.--CORELLI.
And that she should force me, _by the magic of her pen_ to
mentally acknowledge ..., albeit with wrath and shame, my own
inferiority!--CORELLI.
She is a hard-working woman dependant on her literary success for a
livelihood, and you, _rolling in wealth_ do your best to deprive her
of the means of existence.--CORELLI.
Although three trainings of the local militia have been conducted
under the new regime, Alderney, _despite the fact that it is a portion
of the same military command_ has not as yet been affected.--_Guernsey
Evening Press._
5. Parenthesis.
In one sense, everything that is adverbial is parenthetic: it can be
inserted or removed, that is, without damaging the grammar, though not
always without damaging the meaning, of the sentence. But the adverbial
parenthesis, when once inserted, forms a part of the sentence; we have
sufficiently dealt with the stops it requires in the last section; the
use of commas emphasizes its parenthetic character, and is therefore
sometimes desirable, sometimes not; no more need be said about it.
Another kind of parenthesis is that whose meaning practically governs
the sentence in the middle of which it is nevertheless inserted as an
alien element that does not coalesce in grammar with the rest. The
type is--But, you will say, Caesar is not an aristocrat. This kind is
important for our purpose because of the muddles often made, chiefly by
careless punctuation, between the real parenthesis and words that give
the same meaning, but are not, like it, grammatically separable. We
shall start with an indisputable example of this muddle:
Where, do you imagine, she would lay it?--MEREDITH.
These commas cannot possibly indicate anything but parenthesis; but, if
the comma’d words were really a parenthesis, we ought to have _would
she_ instead of _she would_. The four sentences that now follow are all
of one pattern. The bad stopping is probably due to this same confusion
between the parenthetic and the non-parenthetic. But it is possible
that in each the two commas are independent, the first being one of
those that are half rhetorical and half caused by false analogy, which
have been mentioned as common after initial _And_ and _For_; and the
second being the comma wrongly used, as we have maintained, before
substantival _that_-clauses.
Whence, it would appear, that he considers that all deliverances of
consciousness are original judgments.--BALFOUR.
Hence, he reflected, that if he could but use his literary
instinct to feed some commercial undertaking, he might gain a
considerable....--HUTTON.
But, depend upon it, that no Eastern difficulty needs our intervention
so seriously as....--HUXLEY.
And yet, it has been often said, that the party issues were hopelessly
confused.--L. STEPHEN.
A less familiar form of this mistake, and one not likely to occur
except in good writers, since inferior ones seldom attempt the
construction that leads to it, is sometimes found when a subordinating
conjunction is placed late in its clause, after the object or other
member. In the Thackeray sentence, it will be observed that the first
comma would be right (1) if _them_ had stood after _discovered_ instead
of where it does, (2) if _them_ had been omitted, and _any_ had served
as the common object to both verbs.
And to things of great dimensions, if we annex an adventitious idea of
terror, they become without comparison greater.--BURKE.
Any of which peccadilloes, if Miss Sharp discovered, she did not tell
them to Lady Crawley.--THACKERAY.
6. The misplaced comma.
Some authors would seem to have an occasional feeling that here or
hereabouts is the place for a comma, just as in handwriting some
persons are well content if they get a dot in somewhere within
measurable distance of its _i_. The dot is generally over the right
word at any rate, and the comma is seldom more than one word off its
true place.
All true science begins with empiricism--though all true science is
such exactly, in so far as it strives to pass out of the empirical
stage.--HUXLEY.
_Exactly_ qualifies and belongs to _in so far_, &c., not _such_. The
comma should be before it.
This, they for the most part, throw away as worthless.--CORELLI.
_For the most part_, alone, is the adverbial parenthesis.
But this fault occurs, perhaps nine times out of ten, in combination
with the _that_-clause comma so often mentioned. It may be said, when
our instances have been looked into, that in each of them, apart from
the _that_-clause comma, which is recognized by many authorities, there
is merely the licence that we have ourselves allowed, omission of the
first, without omission of the last, comma of an adverbial parenthesis.
But we must point out that Huxley, Green, and Mr. Balfour, man of
science, historian, and philosopher, all belong to that dignified class
of writers which is supposed to, and in most respects does, insist on
full logical stopping; they, in view of their general practice, are not
entitled to our slovenly and merely literary licences.
And the second is, that for the purpose of attaining culture,
an exclusively scientific education is at least as effectual
as....--HUXLEY.
But the full discussion which followed over the various claims showed,
that while exacting to the full what he believed to be his right,
Edward desired to do justice to the country.--J. R. GREEN.
The one difference between these gilds in country and town was, that
in the latter case, from their close local neighbourhood, they tended
to coalesce.--J. R. GREEN.
It follows directly from this definition, that however restricted the
range of possible knowledge may be, philosophy can never be excluded
from it.--BALFOUR.
But the difficulty here, as it seems to me, is, that if you start from
your idea of evolution, these assumptions are....--BALFOUR.
He begged me to give over all unlawful pursuits, saying,
that if persisted in, they were sure of bringing a person to
destruction.--BORROW.
7. Enumeration.
This name, liberally interpreted, is meant to include several more
or less distinct questions. They are difficult, and much debated by
authorities on punctuation, but are of no great importance. We shall
take the liberty of partly leaving them undecided, and partly giving
arbitrary opinions; to argue them out would take more space than it
is worth while to give. But it _is_ worth while to draw attention to
them, so that each writer may be aware that they exist, and at least be
consistent with himself. Typical sentences (from Beadnell) are:
_a._ Industry, honesty, and temperance, are essential to happiness.--B.
_b._ Let us freely drink in the soul of love and beauty and wisdom,
from all nature and art and history.--B.
_c._ Plain honest truth wants no colouring.--B.
_d._ Many states are in alliance with, and under the protection of
France.--B.
Common variants for (_a_) are (1) Industry, honesty and temperance
are essential ... (2) Industry, honesty and temperance, are essential
... (3) Industry, honesty, and temperance are essential.... We
unhesitatingly recommend the original and fully stopped form, which
should be used irrespective of style, and not be interfered with by
rhetorical considerations; it is the only one to which there is never
any objection. Of the examples that follow, the first conforms to the
correct type, but no serious harm would be done if it did not. The
second also conforms; and, if this had followed variant (1) or (2),
here indistinguishable, we should have been in danger of supposing
that Education and Police were one department instead of two. The
third, having no comma after _interests_, follows variant (3), and,
as it happens, with no bad effect on the meaning. All three variants,
however, may under different conditions produce ambiguity or worse.
But those that remain, the women, the youths, the children, and the
elders, work all the harder.--_Times._
Japanese advisers are now attached to the departments of the
Household, War, Finance, Education, and Police.--_Times._
An American, whose patience, tact, and ability in
reconciling conflicting interests have won the praise of all
nationalities.--_Times._
Sometimes enumerations are arranged in pairs; it is then most
unpleasant to have the comma after the last pair omitted, as in:
The orange and the lemon, the olive and the walnut elbow each other
for a footing in the fat dark earth.--F. M. CRAWFORD.
There is a bastard form of enumeration against which warning is
seriously needed. It is viewed as, but is not really, a legitimate case
of type (_a_); and a quite unnecessary objection to the repetition of
_and_ no doubt supplies the motive. Examples are:
He kept manœuvring upon Neipperg, who counter-manœuvred with
vigilance, good judgment, and would not come to action.--CARLYLE.
Moltke had recruited, trained, and knew by heart all the men under
him.--_Times._
Hence loss of time, of money, and sore trial of patience.--R. G. WHITE.
The principle is this: in an enumeration given by means of a comma or
commas, the last comma being replaced by or combined with _and_--our
type (_a_), that is--, there must not be anything that is common to
two members (as here, _counter-manœuvred with_, _had_, _loss_) without
being common to all. We may say, Moltke had recruited and trained and
knew, Moltke had recruited, had trained, and knew, or, Moltke had
recruited, trained, and known; but we must not say what the _Times_
says. The third sentence may run, Loss of time and money, and sore
trial, or, Loss of time, of money, and of patience; but not as it does.
So much for type (_a_). Type (_b_) can be very shortly disposed of. It
differs in that the conjunction (_and_, _or_, _nor_, &c.) is expressed
every time, instead of being represented except in the last place by
a comma. It is logically quite unnecessary, but rhetorically quite
allowable, to use commas as well as conjunctions. The only caution
needed is that, if commas are used at all, and if the enumeration does
not end the sentence, and is not concluded by a stronger stop, a comma
must be inserted after the last member as well as after the others.
In the type sentence, which contains two enumerations, it would be
legitimate to use commas as well as _and_s with one set and not with
the other, if it were desired either to avoid monotony or to give one
list special emphasis. The three examples now to be added transgress
the rule about the final comma. We arrange them from bad to worse; in
the last of them, the apparently needless though not necessarily wrong
comma after _fall_ suggests that the writer has really felt a comma to
be wanting to the enumeration, but has taken a bad shot with it, as in
the examples of section 6 on the misplaced comma.
Neither the Court, nor society, nor Parliament, nor the older men in
the Army have yet recognized the fundamental truth that....--_Times._
A subordinate whose past conduct in the post he fills, and whose known
political sympathies make him wholly unfitted, however loyal his
intentions may be, to give that....--_Times._
But there are uninstructed ears on whom the constant abuse, and
imputation of low motives may fall, with a mischievous and misleading
effect.--_Times._
Of type (_c_) the characteristic is that we have two or more adjectives
attached to a following noun; are there to be commas between the
adjectives, or not? The rule usually given is that there should be,
unless the last adjective is more intimately connected with the noun,
so that the earlier one qualifies, not the noun, but the last adjective
and the noun together; it will be noticed that we strictly have no
enumeration then at all. This is sometimes useful; and so is the more
practical and less theoretic direction to ask whether _and_ could be
inserted, and if so use the comma, but not otherwise. These both sound
sufficient in the abstract. But that there are doubts left in practice
is shown by the type sentence, which Beadnell gives as correct, though
either test would rather require the comma. He gives also as correct,
Can flattery soothe the dull, cold ear of death?--which is not very
clearly distinguishable from the other. Our advice is to use these
tests when in doubt, but with a leaning to the omission of the comma.
If it happens that a comma of this particular class is the only stop in
a sentence, it has a false appearance of dividing the sentence into two
parts that is very unpleasant, and may make the reader go through it
twice to make sure that all is right--an inconvenience that should by
all means be spared him.
Type (_d_) is one in which the final word or phrase of a sentence has
two previous expressions standing in the same grammatical relation to
it, but their ending with different prepositions, or the fact that one
is to be substituted for the other, or the length of the expressions,
or some other cause, obscures this identity of relation. Add to the
type sentence the following:
His eloquence was the main, one might almost say the sole, source of
his influence.--BRYCE.
To dazzle people more, he learned or pretended to learn, the Spanish
language.--BAGEHOT.
... apart from philosophical and sometimes from theological,
theories.--BALFOUR.
The rules we lay down are: (1) If possible use no stops at all. (2)
Never use the second comma and omit the first. (3) Even when the first
is necessary, the second may often be dispensed with. (4) Both commas
may be necessary if the phrases are long.
We should correct all the examples, including the type: the type under
rule (1); the Bryce (which is strictly correct) under rule (3); the
Bagehot under rules (2) and (1); and the Balfour under rules (2) and
(3); the list two are clearly wrong. The four would then stand as
follows:
Many states are in alliance with and under the protection of France.
His eloquence was the main, one might almost say the sole source of
his influence.
To dazzle people more, he learned or pretended to learn the Spanish
language.
... apart from philosophical, and sometimes from theological theories.
Learners will be inclined to say: all this is very indefinite; do
give us a clear rule that will apply to all cases. Such was the view
with which, on a matter of even greater importance than punctuation,
Procrustes identified himself; but it brought him to a bad end. The
clear rule, Use all logical commas, would give us:
He was born, in, or near, London, on December 24th, 1900.
No one would write this who was not suffering from bad hypertrophy of
the grammatical conscience. The clear rule, Use no commas in this sort
of enumeration, would give:
If I have the queer ways you accuse me of, that is because but I
should have thought a man of your perspicacity might have been
expected to see that it was also why I live in a hermitage all by
myself.
No one would write this without both commas (after _because_ and _why_)
who was not deeply committed to an anti-comma crusade. Between the two
extremes lie cases calling for various treatment; the ruling principle
should be freedom within certain limits.
8. The comma between independent sentences.
Among the signs that more particularly betray the uneducated writer is
inability to see when a comma is not a sufficient stop. Unfortunately
little more can be done than to warn beginners that any serious slip
here is much worse than they will probably suppose, and recommend them
to observe the practice of good writers.
It is roughly true that grammatically independent sentences should be
parted by at least a semicolon; but in the first place there are very
large exceptions to this; and secondly, the writer who really knows a
grammatically independent sentence when he sees it is hardly in need of
instruction; this must be our excuse for entering here into what may
be thought too elementary an explanation. Let us take the second point
first; it may be of some assistance to remark that a sentence joined
to the previous one by a coordinating conjunction is grammatically
independent, as well as one not joined to it at all. But the difference
between a coordinating and a subordinating conjunction is itself in
English rather fine. Every one can see that ‘I will not try; it is
dangerous’ is two independent sentences--independent in grammar, though
not in thought. But it is a harder saying that ‘I will not try, for it
is dangerous’ is also two sentences, while ‘I will not try, because it
is dangerous’ is one only. The reason is that _for_ coordinates, and
_because_ subordinates; instead of giving lists, which would probably
be incomplete, of the two kinds of conjunction, we mention that a
subordinating conjunction may be known from the other kind by its
being possible to place it and its clause before the previous sentence
instead of after, without destroying the sense: we can say ‘Because it
is dangerous, I will not try’, but not ‘For it is dangerous, I will
not try’. This test cannot always be applied in complicated sentences;
simple ones must be constructed for testing the conjunction in question.
Assuming that it is now understood (1) what a subordinating and what
a coordinating conjunction is, (2) that a member joined on by no
more than a coordinating conjunction is a grammatically independent
sentence, or simply a sentence in the proper meaning of the word,
and not a subordinate clause, we return to the first point. This was
that, though independent sentences are regularly parted by at least
a semicolon, there are large exceptions to the rule. These we shall
only be able to indicate very loosely. There are three conditions
that may favour the reduction of the semicolon to a comma: (1) Those
coordinating conjunctions which are most common tend in the order of
their commonness to be humble, and to recognize a comma as sufficient
for their dignity. The order may perhaps be given as: _and_, _or_,
_but_, _so_, _nor_, _for_; conjunctions less common than these should
scarcely ever be used with less than a semicolon; and many good
writers would refuse to put a mere comma before _for_. (2) Shortness
and lightness of the sentence joined on helps to lessen the need for
a heavy stop. (3) Intimate connexion in thought with the preceding
sentence has the same effect. Before giving our examples, which are
all of undesirable commas, we point out that in the first two there
are independent signs of the writers’ being uneducated; and such signs
will often be discoverable. It will be clear from what we have said
why the others are bad--except perhaps the third; it is particularly
disagreeable to have two successive independent sentences tagged on
with commas, as those beginning with _nor_ and _for_ are in that
example.
No peace at night he enjoys, _for_ he lays awake.--_Guernsey
Advertiser._
Now accepted, nominal Christendom believes this, and strives to attain
unto it, _then_ why the inconsistency of creed and deed?--_Daily
Telegraph._
But who is responsible to Government for the efficiency of the Army?
The Commander-in-Chief and no one else, _nor_ has anyone questioned
the fact, _for_ it is patent.--_Times._
But even on this theory the formula above stated holds good, _for_
such systems, so far from being self-contained (as it were) and
sufficient evidence for themselves, are really....--BALFOUR.
Some banks on the Nevsky Prospect are having iron shutters fitted,
_otherwise_ there is nothing apparently to justify General Trepoff’s
proclamation.--_Times._
Everybody knows where his own shoe pinches, and, if people find
drawbacks in the places they inhabit, they must also find advantages,
_otherwise_ they would not be there.--_Times._
We have suffered many things at the hands of the Russian Navy during
the war, _nevertheless_ the news that Admiral Rozhdestvensky ... will
send a thrill of admiration....--_Times._
I think that on the whole we may be thankful for the architectural
merits of the Gaiety block, it has breadth and dignity of design and
groups well on the angular site.--_Times._
It will not be irrelevant to add here, though the point has been
touched upon in Understopping, that though a light _and_-clause may be
introduced by no more than a comma, it does not follow that it need not
be separated by any stop at all, as in:
When the Motor Cars Act was before the House it was suggested that
these authorities should be given the right to make recommendations to
the central authorities and that right was conceded.--_Times._
9. The semicolon between subordinate members.
Just as the tiro will be safer if he avoids commas before independent
sentences, so he will generally be wise not to use a semicolon before
a mere subordinate member. We have explained, indeed, that it is
sometimes quite legitimate for rhetorical reasons, and is under certain
circumstances almost required by proportion. This is when the sentence
contains commas doing less important work than the one about which the
question arises. But the tiro’s true way out of the difficulty is to
simplify his sentences so that they do not need such differentiation.
Even skilful writers, as the following two quotations will show,
sometimes come to grief over this.
One view called me to another; one hill to its fellow, half across the
county, and since I could answer at no more trouble than the snapping
forward of a lever, I let the county flow under my wheels.--KIPLING.
Nay, do not the elements of all human virtues and all human vices;
the passions at once of a Borgia and of a Luther, lie written, in
stronger or fainter lines, in the consciousness of every individual
bosom?--CARLYLE.
In the first of these the second comma and the semicolon clearly ought
to change places. In the second it looks as if Carlyle had thought
it dull to have so many commas about; but the remedy was much worse
than dullness. Avoidance of what a correspondent supposes to be dull,
but what would in fact be natural and right, accounts also for the
following piece of vicarious rhetoric; the writer is not nearly so
excited, it may be suspected, as his semicolons would make him out.
The ordinary sensible man would have (1) used commas, and (2) either
omitted the third and fourth _denies_ (reminding us of Zola’s famous
_j’accuse_, not vicarious, and on an adequate occasion), or else
inserted an _and_ before the last repetition.
Mr. Loomis denies all three categorically. He denies that the
Asphalt Company paid him £2,000 or any other sum; denies that he
purchased a claim against the Venezuelan Government and then used his
influence when Minister at Caracas to collect the claim; denies that
he agreed with Mr. Meyers or anybody else to use his influence for
money.--_Times._
10. The exclamation mark when there is no exclamation.
My friend! this conduct amazes me!--B.
We must differ altogether from Beadnell’s rule that ‘This point is
used to denote any sudden emotion of the mind, whether of joy, grief,
surprise, fear, or any other sensation’--at least as it is exemplified
in his first instance, given above. The exclamation mark after _friend_
is justifiable, not the other. The stop should be used, with one
exception, only after real exclamations. Real exclamations include
(1) the words recognized as interjections, as _alas_, (2) fragmentary
expressions that are not complete sentences, as _My friend_ in the
example, and (3) complete statements that contain an exclamatory word,
as:
What a piece of work is man!--B.
The exception mentioned above is this: when the writer wishes to
express his own incredulity or other feeling about what is not his own
statement, but practically a quotation from some one else, he is at
liberty to do it with a mark of exclamation; in the following example,
the epitaph-writer expresses either his wonder or his incredulity about
what Fame says.
Entomb’d within this vault a lawyer lies
Who, Fame assureth us, was just and wise!--B.
The exclamation mark is a neat and concise sneer at the legal
profession.
Outside these narrow limits the exclamation mark must not be used. We
shall quote a very instructive saying of Landor’s: ‘I read warily;
and whenever I find the writings of a lady, the first thing I do
is to cast my eye along her pages, to see whether I am likely to be
annoyed by the traps and spring-guns of interjections; and if I happen
to espy them I do not leap the paling’. To this we add that when the
exclamation mark is used after mere statements it deserves the name,
by which it is sometimes called, mark of admiration; we feel that the
writer is indeed lost in admiration of his own wit or impressiveness.
But this use is mainly confined to lower-class authors; when a grave
historian stoops to it, he gives us quite a different sort of shock
from what he designed.
The unfortunate commander was in the situation of some bold,
high-mettled cavalier, rushing to battle on a warhorse whose tottering
joints threaten to give way at every step, and leave his rider to the
mercy of his enemies!--PRESCOTT.
The road now struck into the heart of a mountain region, where
woods, precipices, and ravines were mingled together in a sort of
chaotic confusion, with here and there a green and sheltered valley,
glittering like an island of verdure amidst the wild breakers of a
troubled ocean!--PRESCOTT.
11. Confusion between question and exclamation.
Fortunate man!--who would not envy you! Love!--who would, who could
exist without it--save me!--CORELLI.
What wonder that the most docile of Russians should be crying out ‘how
long’!--_Times._
We have started with three indisputable instances of the exclamation
mark used for the question mark. It is worth notice that the correct
stopping for the end of the second quotation (though such accuracy
is seldom attempted) would be:--long?’? To have fused two questions
into an exclamation is an achievement. But these are mere indefensible
blunders, not needing to be thought twice about, such as author and
compositor incline to put off each on the other’s shoulders.
The case is not always so clear. In the six sentences lettered for
reference, _a_-_d_ have the wrong stop; in _e_ the stop implied by _he
exclaims_ is also wrong; in _f_, though the stop is right assuming
that the form of the sentence is what was really meant, we venture to
question this point, as we do also in some of the earlier sentences.
Any one who agrees with the details of this summary can save himself
the trouble of reading the subsequent discussion.
_a._ In that interval what had I not lost!--LAMB.
_b._ And what will not the discontinuance cost me!--RICHARDSON.
_c._ A streak of blue below the hanging alders is certainly a
characteristic introduction to the kingfisher. How many people first
see him so?--_Times._
_d._ Does the reading of history make us fatalists? What courage does
not the opposite opinion show!--EMERSON.
_e._ What economy of life and money, he exclaims, would not have been
spared the empire of the Tsars had it not rendered war certain by
devoting itself so largely to the works of peace.--_Times._
_f._ How many, who think no otherwise than the young painter, have we
not heard disbursing secondhand hyperboles?--STEVENSON.
It will be noticed that in all these sentences except _c_ there is a
negative, which puts them, except _f_, wrong; while in _c_ it is the
absence of the negative that makes the question wrong. It will be
simplest to start with _c_. The writer clearly means to let us know
that many people see the kingfisher first as a blue streak. He might
give this simply so, as a statement. He might (artificially) give it
as an exclamation--_How many first see him so!_ Or he might (very
artificially) give it as a question--_How many do not first see him
so?_--a ‘rhetorical question’ in which _How many_ interrogative is
understood to be equivalent to _Few_ positive. He has rejected the
simple statement; vaulting ambition has o’erleapt, and he has ended in
a confusion between the two artificial ways of saying the thing, taking
the words of the possible exclamation and the stop of the possible
question. In _a_, _b_, _d_, and implicitly in _e_, we have the converse
arrangement, or derangement. But as a little more clear thinking is
required for them, we point out that the origin of the confusion
(though the careless printing of fifty or a hundred years ago no doubt
helped to establish it) lies in the identity between the words used
for questions and for exclamations. It will be enough to suggest the
process that accounts for _a_; the ambiguity is easily got rid of by
inserting a noun with _what_.
_Question_: What amount had I lost?
_Exclamation_: What an amount I had lost!
That is the first stage; the resemblance is next increased by inverting
subject and verb in the exclamation, which is both natural enough in
that kind of sentence, and particularly easy after _In that interval_.
So we get
_Question_: In that interval, what (amount) had I lost?
_Exclamation_: In that interval, what (an amount) had I lost!
The words, when the bracketed part of each sentence is left out, are
now the same; but the question is of course incapable of giving the
required meaning. The writer, seeing this, but deceived by the order
of words into thinking the exclamation a question, tries to mend it
by inserting _not_; _what ... not_, in rhetorical questions, being
equivalent to _everything_. At this stage some writers stick, as
Stevenson in _f_. Others try to make a right out of two wrongs by
restoring to the quondam exclamation, which has been wrongly converted
with the help of _not_ into a question, the exclamation mark to which
it has after conversion no right. Such is the genesis of _a_, _b_, _d_.
The proper method, when the simple statement is rejected, as it often
reasonably may be, is to use the exclamation, not the Stevensonian
question[13], to give the exclamation its right mark, and not to insert
the illogical negative.
12. Internal question and exclamation marks.
By this name we do not mean that insertion of a bracketed stop of which
we shall nevertheless give one example. That is indeed a confession of
weakness and infallible sign of the prentice hand, and further examples
will be found in _Airs and Graces_, _miscellaneous_; but it is outside
grammar, with which these sections are concerned.
Under these circumstances, it would be interesting to ascertain
the exact position of landlords whose tenants decline to pay rent,
and whose only asset (!) from their property is the income-tax now
claimed.--_Times._
What is meant is the ugly stop in the middle of a sentence, unbracketed
and undefended by quotation marks, of which examples follow. To
novelists, as in the first example, it may be necessary for the purpose
of avoiding the nuisance of perpetual quotation marks. But elsewhere
it should be got rid of by use of the indirect question or otherwise.
Excessive indulgence in direct questions or exclamations where there
is no need for them whatever is one of the sensational tendencies of
modern newspapers.
Why be scheming? Victor asked.--MEREDITH.
What will Japan do? is thought the most pressing question of
all.--_Times._ (What Japan will do is thought, &c.)
What next? is the next question which the American Press
discusses.--_Times._ (‘What next?’ is, &c. Or, What will come next is,
&c.)
Amusing efforts are shown below at escaping the ugliness of the
internal question mark. Observe that the third quotation has a worse
blunder, since we have here two independent sentences.
Can it be that the Government will still persist in continuing the now
hopeless struggle is the question on every lip?--_Times._
Men are disenchanted. They have got what they wanted in the days of
their youth, yet what of it, they ask?--MORLEY.
Yet we remember seeing l’Abbé Constantin some sixteen years ago or
more at the Royalty, with that fine old actor Lafontaine in the
principal part, and seeing it with lively interest. Was it distinctly
‘dates’, for nothing wears so badly as the namby-pamby?--_Times._
13. The unaccountable comma.
We shall now conclude these grammatical sections with a single example
of those commas about which it is only possible to say that they are
repugnant to grammar. It is as difficult to decide what principle they
offend against as what impulse can possibly have dictated them. They
are commonest in the least educated writers of all; and, next to
these, in the men of science whose overpowering conscientiousness has
made the mechanical putting in of commas so habitual that it perhaps
becomes with them a sort of reflex action, and does itself at wrong
moments without their volition.
The Rector, lineal representative of the ancient monarchs of the
University, though now, little more than a ‘king of shreds and
patches.’--HUXLEY.
THE COLON
It was said in the general remarks at the beginning of this chapter
that the systematic use of the colon as one of the series (,), (;),
(:), (.), had died out with the decay of formal periods. Many people
continue to use it, but few, if we can trust our observation, with any
nice regard to its value. Some think it a prettier or more impressive
stop than the semicolon, and use it instead of that; some like variety,
and use the two indifferently, or resort to one when they are tired
of the other. As the abandonment of periodic arrangement really makes
the colon useless, it would be well (though of course any one who
still writes in formal periods should retain his rights over it) if
ordinary writers would give it up altogether except in the special
uses, independent of its quantitative value, to which it is being more
and more applied by common consent. These are (1) between two sentences
that are in clear antithesis, but not connected by an adversative
conjunction; (2) introducing a short quotation; (3) introducing a
list; (4) introducing a sentence that comes as fulfilment of a promise
expressed or implied in the previous sentence; (5) introducing an
explanation or proof that is not connected with the previous sentence
by _for_ or the like. Examples are:
(1) Man proposes: God disposes.
(2) Always remember the ancient maxim: Know thyself.--B.
(3) Chief rivers: Thames, Severn, Humber....
(4) Some things we can, and others we cannot do: we can walk, but we
cannot fly.--BIGELOW.
(5) Rebuke thy son in private: public rebuke hardens the heart.--B.
In the following clear case of antithesis a colon would have been more
according to modern usage than the semicolon.
As apart from our requirements Mr. Arnold-Forster’s schemes have many
merits; in relation to them they have very few.--_Times._
It now only remains, before leaving actual stops for the dash, hyphen,
quotation mark, and bracket, to comment on a few stray cases of
ambiguity, false scent, and ill-judged stopping. We have not hunted
up, and shall not manufacture, any of the patent absurdities that
are amusing but unprofitable. The sort of ambiguity that most needs
guarding against is that which allows a sleepy reader to take the words
wrong when the omission or insertion of a stop would have saved him.
The chief agitators of the League, who have--not unnaturally
considering the favours showered upon them in the past--a high sense
of their own importance....--_Times._
With no comma after _unnaturally_ the first thought is that the
agitators not unnaturally consider; second thoughts put it right; but
second thoughts should never be expected from a reader.
Simultaneously extensive reclamation of land and harbour improvements
are in progress at Chemulpo and Fusan.--_Times._
With no comma after the first word, the sleepy reader is set wondering
what _simultaneously extensive_ means, and whether it is journalese for
_equally extensive_.
But Anne and I did, for we had played there all our lives--at least,
all the years we had spent together and the rest do not count in the
story. When Anne and I came together we began to live.--CROCKETT.
A comma after _together_ would save us from adding the two sets
of years to each other. In the next piece, on the other hand, the
uncomfortable comma after _gold_ is apparently meant to warn us quite
unnecessarily that _here and there_ belongs to the verb.
Flecks of straw-coloured gold, here and there lay upon it, where the
sunshine touched the bent of last year.--CROCKETT.
After that, having once fallen off from their course, they at length
succeeded in crossing the Aegean, and beating up in the teeth of the
Etesian winds, only yesterday, seventy days out from Egypt, put in at
the Piraeus.--S. T. IRWIN.
The omission of the comma between _and_ and _beating_ would ordinarily
be quite legitimate. Here, it puts us off on a false scent, because
it allows _beating_ to seem parallel with _crossing_ and object to
_succeeded in_; we have to go back again when we get to the end, and
work it out.
The French demurring to the conditions which the English commander
offered, again commenced the action.--B.
The want of a comma between _French_ and _demurring_ makes us assume
an absolute construction and expect another subject, of which we are
disappointed.
The next two pairs of examples illustrate the effect of mere accidental
position on stopping. This is one of the numberless small disturbing
elements that make cast-iron rules impossible in punctuation.
I must leave you to discover what the answer is.
What the answer is, I must leave you to discover.
That is, a substantival clause out of its place is generally allowed
the comma that all but the straitest sect of punctuators would refuse
it in its place.
In the present dispute, therefore, the local politicians have had to
choose between defence of the principle of authority and espousing the
cause of the local police.--_Times._
Of its forty-four commissioners however few actually took any part in
its proceedings; and the powers of the Commission....--J. R. GREEN.
The half adverbs half conjunctions of which _therefore_ and _however_
are instances occupy usually the second place in the sentence. When
there, it is of little importance whether they are stopped or not,
though we have indicated our preference for no stops. But when it
happens that they come later (or earlier), the commas are generally
wanted. _Therefore_ in the first of these sentences would be as
uncomfortable if stripped as _however_ actually is in the second.
DASHES
Moved beyond his wont by our English ill-treatment of the dash,
Beadnell permits himself a wail as just as it is pathetic.
‘The dash is frequently employed in a very capricious and arbitrary
manner, as a substitute for all sorts of points, by writers whose
thoughts, although, it may be, sometimes striking and profound, are
thrown together without order or dependence; also by some others, who
think that they thereby give prominence and emphasis to expressions
which in themselves are very commonplace, and would, without this
fictitious assistance, escape the observation of the reader, or be
deemed by him hardly worthy of notice.’
It is all only too true; these are the realms of Chaos, and the lord
of them is Sterne, from whom modern writers of the purely literary
kind have so many of their characteristics. Wishing for an example,
we merely opened the first volume of _Tristram Shandy_ at a venture,
and ‘thus the Anarch old With faltering speech and visage incomposed
Answered’:
--Observe, I determine nothing upon this.--My way is ever to point
out to the curious, different tracts of investigation, to come at the
first springs of the events I tell;--not with a pedantic fescue,--or
in the decisive manner of Tacitus, who outwits himself and his
reader;--but with the officious humility of a heart devoted to the
assistance merely of the inquisitive;--to them I write,--and by them I
shall be read,--if any such reading as this could be supposed to hold
out so long,--to the very end of the world.--STERNE.
The modern newspaper writer who overdoes the use of dashes is seldom as
incorrect as Sterne, but is perhaps more irritating:
There are also a great number of people--many of them not in the
least tainted by militarism--who go further and who feel that a man
in order to be a complete man--that is, one capable of protecting
his life, his country, and his civil and political rights--should
acquire as a boy and youth the elements of military training,--that
is, should be given a physical training of a military character,
including....--_Spectator._
It must be added, however, that Beadnell himself helps to make things
worse, by countenancing the strange printer’s superstition that (,--)
is beautiful to look upon, and (--,) ugly.
Under these circumstances we shall have to abandon our usual practice
of attending only to common mistakes, and deal with the matter a
little more systematically. We shall first catalogue, with examples,
the chief uses of the dash; next state the debatable questions that
arise; and end with the more definite misuses. It will be convenient
to number all examples for reference; and, as many or most of the
quotations contain some minor violation of what we consider the true
principles, these will be corrected in brackets.
1. Chief common uses.
_a._ Adding to a phrase already used an explanation, example, or
preferable substitute.
1. Nicholas Copernicus was instructed in that seminary where it is
always happy when any one can be well taught,--the family circle.--B.
(Omit the comma)
2. Anybody might be an accuser,--a personal enemy, an infamous person,
a child, parent, brother, or sister.--LOWELL. (Omit the comma)
3. That the girls were really possessed seemed to Stoughton and his
colleagues the most rational theory,--a theory in harmony with the
rest of their creed.--LOWELL. (Omit the comma)
_b._ Inviting the reader to pause and collect his forces against the
shock of an unexpected word that is to close the sentence. It is
generally, but not always, better to abstain from this device; the
unexpected, if not drawn attention to, is often more effective because
less theatrical.
4. To write imaginatively a man should have--imagination.--LOWELL.
_c._ Assuring the reader that what is coming, even if not unexpected,
is witty. Writers should be exceedingly sparing of this use; good wine
needs no bush.
5. Misfortune in various forms had overtaken the county families, from
high farming to a taste for the junior stage, and--the proprietors
lived anywhere else except on their own proper estates.--CROCKETT.
_d._ Marking arrival at the principal sentence or the predicate after a
subordinate clause or a subject that is long or compound.
6. As soon as the queen shall come to London, and the houses of
Parliament shall be opened, and the speech from the throne be
delivered,--then will begin the great struggle of the contending
factions.--B.
_e._ Resuming after a parenthesis or long phrase, generally with
repetition of some previous words in danger of being forgotten.
7. It is now idle to attempt to hide the fact that never was the
Russian lack of science, of the modern spirit, or, to speak frankly,
of intelligence--never was the absence of training or of enthusiasm
which retards the efforts of the whole Empire displayed in a more
melancholy fashion than in the Sea of Japan.--_Times._ (Add a comma
after _intelligence_)
_f._ Giving the air of an afterthought to a final comment that would
spoil the balance of the sentence if preceded only by an ordinary stop.
Justifiable when really wanted, that is, when it is important to keep
the comment till the end; otherwise it is slightly insulting to the
reader, implying that he was not worth working out the sentence for
before it was put down.
8. As they parted, she insisted on his giving the most solemn
promises that he would not expose himself to danger--which was quite
unnecessary.
_g._ Marking a change of speakers when quotation marks and ‘he said’,
&c., are not used; or, in a single speech, a change of subject or
person addressed.
9. Who created you?--God.--B.
10. ... And lose the name of action.--Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia!
_h._ With colon or other stop before a quotation.
11. Hear Milton:--How charming is divine Philosophy!
12. What says Bacon?--Revenge is a kind of wild justice.
_i._ Introducing a list.
13. The four greatest names in English literature are almost the first
we come to,--Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, and Milton.--B. (Omit the
comma before the dash)
_k._ Confessing an anacoluthon, or substitution of a new construction
for the one started with.
14. Then the eye of a child,--who can look unmoved into that well
undefiled, in which heaven itself seems to be reflected?--BIGELOW.
(Omit the comma)
_l._ Breaking off a sentence altogether.
15. Oh, how I wish--! But what is the use of wishing?
_m._ Doubled to serve the purpose of brackets. It gives a medium
between the light comma parenthesis and the heavy bracket parenthesis.
It also has the advantage over brackets that when the parenthesis
ends only with the sentence the second dash need not be given; this
advantage, however, may involve ambiguity, as will be shown.
16. In every well regulated community--such as that of England,--the
laws own no superior.--B. (The comma should either be omitted or
placed after instead of before the second dash).
These are a dozen distinct uses of more or less value or importance,
to which others might no doubt be added; but they will suffice both to
show that the dash is a hard-worked symbol, and to base our remarks
upon.
2. Debatable questions.
There are several questions that must be answered before we can use
the dash with confidence. First, is the dash to supersede stops at the
place where it is inserted, or to be added to them? Secondly, what is
its relation to the stops in the part of the sentence (or group of
sentences) that follows it? Does its authority, that is, extend to the
end of the sentence or group, or where does it cease? Thirdly, assuming
that it is or can be combined with stops, what is the right order as
between the two?
Beadnell’s answer to the first question is: _The dash does not dispense
with the use of the ordinary points at the same time, when the
grammatical construction of the sentence requires them._ But inasmuch
as a dash implies some sort of break, irregular pause, or change of
intention, it seems quite needless to insert the stop that would have
been used if it had not been decided that a stop was inadequate. The
dash is a confession that the stop will not do; then let the stop go.
The reader, who is the person to be considered, generally neither
knows nor cares to know how the sentence might, with inferior effect,
have been written; he only feels that the stop is otiose, and that
his author had better have been off with the old love before he was
on with the new. There are exceptions to this: obviously in examples
9, 10, 11, 12, and 15, where the dash is at the end or beginning of a
sentence; and perhaps also in sentences of which the reader can clearly
foresee the grammatical development. In example 7, for instance, it
is clear that a participle (_displayed_ or another) is due after
_never was_ &c.; a comma after _intelligence_ is therefore definitely
expected. So in example 6 we are expecting either another continuation
of _as soon as_, or the principal sentence, before either of which
a comma is looked for. In examples 2 and 3, on the other hand, the
sentence may for all we know be complete at the place where the dash
stands, so that no expectation is disappointed by omitting the comma.
The rule, then, should be that a dash is a substitute for any internal
stop, and not an addition to it, except when, from the reader’s point
of view, a particular stop seemed inevitable.
It must be admitted that that conclusion is not very certain, and also
that the matter is of no great importance, provided that the stops,
if inserted, are the right ones. More certainty is possible about
the combination of stops with the double dash, which we have not yet
considered. The probable origin of the double dash will be touched
upon when we come to the second question; but whatever its origin,
it is now simply equivalent to a pair of brackets, except that it is
slightly less conspicuous, and sometimes preferred on that account.
Consequently, the same rule about stops will apply to both, and as
there is no occasion to treat of brackets separately, it may here be
stated for both. The use of a parenthesis being to insert, without
damage to the rest of the sentence, something that is of theoretically
minor importance, it is necessary that we should be able simply to
remove the two dashes or brackets with everything enclosed by them, and
after their removal find the sentence complete and rightly punctuated.
Further, there is no reason for using inside the parenthesis any stop
that has not an internal value; that is, no stop can possibly be
needed just before the second dash except an exclamation or question
mark, and none at all just after the first; but stops may be necessary
to divide up the parenthesis itself if it is compound. Three examples
follow, with the proper corrections in brackets:
17. Garinet cites the case of a girl near Amiens possessed by three
demons,--Mimi, Zozo, and Crapoulet,--in 1816.--LOWELL. (Omit both
commas; the first is indeed just possible, though not required, in
the principal sentence; the last is absolutely meaningless in the
parenthesis)
18. Its visions and its delights are too penetrating,--too
living,--for any white-washed object or shallow fountain long to
endure or to supply.--RUSKIN. (Omit both commas; this time the
first is as impossible in the principal sentence as the second is
meaningless in the parenthesis)
19. The second carries us on from 1625 to 1714--less than a
century--yet the walls of the big hall in the Examination Schools are
not only well covered....--_Times._ (Insert a comma, as necessary
to the principal sentence, outside the dashes; whether before the
first or after the last will be explained in our answer to the third
question)
The second question is, how far the authority of the dash extends.
There is no reason, in the nature of things, why we should not on
the one hand be relieved of it by the next stop, or on the other be
subject to it till the paragraph ends. The three following examples,
which we shall correct in brackets by anticipation, but which we shall
also assume not to be mere careless blunders, seem to go on the first
hypothesis.
20. The Moral Nature, that Law of laws, whose revelations
introduce greatness--yea, God himself, into the open soul, is not
explored.--EMERSON. (Substitute a dash for the comma after _himself_.
Here, however, Emerson expects us to terminate the authority at the
right comma rather than at the first that comes, making things worse)
21. I ... there complained of the common notions of the special
virtues--justice, &c., as too vague to furnish exact determinations of
the actions enjoined under them.--H. SIDGWICK. (Substitute a dash for
the comma after _&c._)
22. There are vicars and vicars, and of all sorts I love an innovating
vicar--a piebald progressive professional reactionary, the least.--H.
G. WELLS. (Substitute a dash for the comma after _reactionary_)
It needs no further demonstration, however, that commas are frequently
used after a dash without putting an end to its influence; and if they
are to be sometimes taken, nevertheless, as doing so, confusion is sure
to result. Unless the author of the next example is blind to the danger
that two neighbouring but independent dashes may be mistaken for a
parenthetic pair, he must have assumed that the authority of a dash is
terminated at any rate by a semicolon; that, if true, would obviate the
danger.
23. It is a forlorn hope, however excellent the translation--and Mr.
Hankin’s could not be bettered; or however careful the playing--and
the playing at the Stage Society performance was meticulously
careful.--_Times._ (Insert a dash between _bettered_ and the
semicolon, which then need not be more than a comma)
But that it is not true will probably be admitted on the strength of
sentences like:
24. There may be differences of opinion on the degrees--no one takes
white for black: most people sometimes take blackish for black--, but
that is not fatal to my argument.
On the other hand, we doubt whether a full stop is ever allowed to
stand in the middle of a dash parenthesis, as it of course may in a
bracket parenthesis. The reason for the distinction is clear. When we
have had a left-hand bracket we know for certain that a right-hand
one is due, full stops or no full stops; but when we have had a dash,
we very seldom know for certain that it is one of a pair; and the
appearance of a full stop would be too severe a trial of our faith.
It seems natural to suppose that the double-dash parenthesis is thus
accounted for: the construction started with a single dash; but as it
was often necessary to revert to the main construction, the second
dash was resorted to as a declaration that the close time, or state of
siege, was over. The rule we deduce is: All that follows a dash is to
be taken as under its influence until either a second dash terminates
it, or a full stop is reached.
Our answer to the third question has already been given by
implication; but it may be better to give it again explicitly. We first
refer to examples 1, 2, 3, 6, 13, 14, 24, in all of which the stop, if
one is to be used, though our view is that in most of these sentences
it should not, is in the right place; and to example 16, in which it is
in the wrong place. We next add two new examples of wrong order, with
corrections as usual; the rules for stops with brackets are the same as
with double dashes.
25. Throughout the parts which they are intended to make most
personally their own, (the Psalms,) it is always the Law which is
spoken of with chief joy.--RUSKIN. (Remove both commas, and use
according to taste either none at all, or one after the second bracket)
26. What is the difference, whether land and sea interact, and worlds
revolve and intermingle without number or end,--deep yawning under
deep, and galaxy balancing galaxy, throughout absolute space,--or,
whether....--EMERSON. (Remove both commas, and place one after the
second dash)
A protest must next be made against the compositor’s superstition
embodied in Beadnell’s words: _As the dash in this case supplies the
place of the parenthesis, strictly speaking, the grammatical point
should follow the last dash; but as this would have an unsightly
appearance, it is always placed before it._ This unsightliness is
either imaginary or at most purely conventional, and should be entirely
disregarded. The rules will be (1) For the single dash: Since the dash
is on any view either a correction of or an addition to the stop that
would have been used if dashes had not existed, the dash will always
stand after the stop. (2) For the double dash or brackets: There will
be one stop or none according to the requirements of the principal
sentence only; there will never be two stops (apart, of course, from
internal ones); if there is one, it will stand before the first or
after the last dash or bracket according as the parenthesis belongs to
the following or the preceding part of the principal sentence. It may
be added that it is extremely rare for the parenthesis to belong to
the last part, and therefore for the stop to be rightly placed before
it. In the following example constructed for the occasion it does so
belong; but for practical purposes the rule might be that if a stop is
required it stands after the second dash or bracket.
27. When I last saw him, (a singular fact) his nose was pea-green.
3. Common misuses.
_a._ If two single independent dashes are placed near each other, still
more if they are in the same sentence, the reader naturally takes
them for a pair constituting a parenthesis, and has to reconsider the
sentence when he finds that his first reading gives nonsense. We refer
back to example 23. But this indiscretion is so common that it is well
to add some more. The sentences should be read over without the two
dashes and what they enclose.
Then there is also Miss Euphemia, long deposed from her office
of governess, but pensioned and so driven to good works and the
manufacture of the most wonderful crazy quilts--for which, to her
credit be it said, she shows a remarkable aptitude--as I should have
supposed.--CROCKETT.
The English came mainly from the Germans, whom Rome found hard to
conquer in 210 years--say, impossible to conquer--when one remembers
the long sequel.--EMERSON.
As for Anne--well, Anne was Anne--never more calm than when others
were tempestuous.--CROCKETT.
_b._ The first dash is inserted and the second forgotten. It will
suffice to refer back to examples 20, 21, 22.
_c._ Brackets and dashes are combined. It is a pity from the
collector’s point of view that Carlyle, being in the mood, did not
realize the full possibilities, and add a pair of commas, closing up
the parenthesis in _robur et aes triplex_.
How much would I give to have my mother--(though both my wife and I
have of late times lived wholly for her, and had much to endure on her
account)--how much would I give to have her back to me.--CARLYLE.
_d._ Like the comma, the dash is sometimes misplaced by a word or two.
In the first example, the first dash should be one place later; and in
the second, unless we misread the sentence and this is another case of
two single dashes, the second dash should be two places earlier, and
itself be replaced by a comma.
Here she is perhaps at her best--and in the best sense--her most
feminine, as a woman sympathizing with the sorrows peculiar to
women.--_Times._
The girl he had dreamed about--the girl with the smile was there--near
him, in his hut.--CROCKETT.
_e._ Dashes are sometimes used when an ordinary stop would serve
quite well. In the Lowell sentences, the reason why a comma is not
used is that the members are themselves broken up by commas, and
therefore demand a heavier stop to divide them from each other; this,
as explained in the early part of the chapter, is the place for a
semicolon. In the Corelli sentence, it is a question between comma and
semicolon, either of which would do quite well.
Shakespeare found a language already to a certain extent established,
but not yet fetlocked by dictionary and grammar mongers,--a
versification harmonized, but which had not yet....--LOWELL.
While I believe that our language had two periods of culmination
in poetic beauty,--one of nature, simplicity, and truth, in the
ballads, which deal only with narrative and feeling,--another of
Art....--LOWELL.
We were shown in,--and Mavis, who had expected our visit did not keep
us waiting long.--CORELLI.
HYPHENS
We return here to our usual practice of disregarding everything
not necessary for dealing with common mistakes. But some general
principles, most of which will probably find acceptance, will be useful
to start from.
1. Hyphens are regrettable necessities, and to be done without when
they reasonably may.
2. There are three degrees of intimacy between words, of which the
first and loosest is expressed by their mere juxtaposition as separate
words, the second by their being hyphened, and the third or closest
by their being written continuously as one word. Thus, hand workers,
hand-workers, handworkers.
3. It is good English usage to place a noun or other non-adjectival
part of speech before a noun, printing it as a separate word, and to
regard it as serving the purpose of an adjective in virtue of its
position; for instance, _war expenditure_; but there are sometimes
special objections to its being done. Thus, words in _-ing_ may be
actual adjectives (participles), or nouns (gerunds), used in virtue of
their position as adjectives; and a visible distinction is needed. A
_walking stick_ is a stick that walks, and the phrase might occur as a
metaphorical description of a stiffly behaved person: a _walking-stick_
or _walkingstick_ is a stick for walking; the difference may sometimes
be important, and consistency may be held to require that all compounds
with gerunds should be hyphened or made into single words.
4. Not only can a single word in ordinary circumstances be thus treated
as an adjective, but the same is true of a phrase; the words of the
phrase, however, must then be hyphened, or ambiguity may result. Thus:
Covent Garden; Covent-Garden Market; Covent-Garden-Market salesmen.
* * * * *
The prevailing method of giving railway and street names, besides its
ungainliness, is often misleading and contrary to common sense. For
one difficulty we suggest recurrence to the old-fashioned formula with
commas, and _and_, as in _The London, Chatham, and Dover_. On another,
it is to be observed that _New York-street_ should mean the new part of
York Street, but _New-York Street_ the street named after New York. The
set of examples includes some analogous cases, besides the railway and
street names.
It is stated that the train service on the
Hsin-min-tun-Kau-pan-tse-Yingkau section of the Imperial Chinese
Railway will be restored within a few days.--_Times._
Hsinmintun, Kaupantse, and Yingkau. These places can surely do without
their internal hyphens in an English newspaper; and one almost
suspects, from the absence of a hyphen between _Ying_ and _kau_, that
the _Times’s_ stock must have run short.
Even third-class carriages are scarce on the Dalny-Port Arthur
line.--_Times._
The Dalny and Port-Arthur line. By general principle 4, though _Port
Arthur_ needs no hyphen by itself, it does as soon as it stands for an
adjective with _line_: the Port-Arthur line. Also, by 2, the _Times_
version implies that _Dalny_ is more closely connected with _Port_ than
_Port_ with _Arthur_. We do indeed most of us know at present that
there is no Dalny Port so called, and that there is a Port Arthur. But
in the next example, who would know that there was a Brest Litovski,
but for the sentence that follows?
A general strike has been declared on the Warsaw-Brest Litovski
railway. The telegraph stations at Praga, Warsaw, and Brest Litovski
have been damaged.--_Times._
The Warsaw and Brest-Litovski railway. By 4, the hyphen between _Brest_
and _Litovski_ is necessary. If we write _Warsaw-Brest-Litovski_, it is
natural to suppose that three places are meant; the _and_ solution is
accordingly the best.
At Bow-street, Robert Marsh, greengrocer, of Great Western-road,
Harrow-road, was charged....--_Times._
Great-Western Road, Harrow Road. Bow-street, as _at_ (not _in_) shows,
is a compound epithet for _police-court_ understood, and has a right to
its hyphen. By 3, there is no need for a hyphen after _Harrow_, and by
1, if unnecessary, it is undesirable. As to the other road, there are
three possibilities. The _Times_ is right if there is a _Western Road_
of which one section is called _Great_, and the other _Little_. If the
name means literally the great road that runs west, there should be no
hyphen at all. If the road is named from the Great Western Railway, or
from the Great-Western Hotel, our version is right.
Cochin China waters.--_Times._
By 4, _Cochin China_ gives _Cochin-China_ waters.
Within the last ten days two Anglo-South Americans have been in my
office arranging for passages to New Zealand.--_Times._
_Anglo-South-Americans_ is the best that can be done. What is really
wanted is _Anglo-SouthAmericans_, to show that _South_ goes more
closely with _America_. But it is too hopelessly contrary to usage at
present.
The proceeds of the recent London-New York loan.--_Times._ (London and
New-York loan.)
A good, generous, King Mark-like sort of man.--_Times._
_King-Mark-like_, in default of _KingMark-like_. But the addition of
_-like_ to compound names should be avoided.
The Fugitive Slave-law in America before the rebellion.---H. SIDGWICK.
(Fugitive-Slave law.)
The steam-cars will have 16-horse power engines.--_Times._
_Steam cars_ is better, by 3, and 1. And 16-horsepower engines. We can
do this time what the capitals of _American_ and _Mark_ prevented in
the previous compounds.
Entirely gratuitous hyphens.
One had a male-partner, who hopped his loutish burlesque.--MEREDITH.
Gluttony is the least-generous of the vices.--MEREDITH.
A little china-box, bearing the motto ‘Though lost to sight, to memory
dear,’ which Dorcas sent her as a remembrance.--ELIOT.
This evidently means a box made of china. A box to hold china would
have the hyphen properly, and there are many differentiations of this
kind, of which _black bird_, as opposed to _black-bird_ or _blackbird_,
is the type.
Bertie took up a quantity of waste-papers, and thrust them down into
the basket.--E. F. BENSON.
This is probably formed by a mistaken step backwards from _waste-paper
basket_, where the hyphen is correct, as explained in 3.
In phrases like _wet and dry fly fishing_, compounded of _wet-fly
fishing_ and _dry-fly fishing_, methods vary. For instance:
A low door, leading through a moss and ivy-covered wall.--SCOTT.
A language ... not yet fetlocked by dictionary and grammar
mongers.--LOWELL.
Those who take human or womankind for their study.--THACKERAY.
The single phrases would have the hyphen for different reasons
(_moss-covered_, &c.), all but _human kind_. The only quite
satisfactory plan is the Germans’, who would write _moss-_ and
_ivy-covered_. This is imitated in English, as:
In old woods and on fern-and gorse-covered hilltops they do no harm
whatever.--_Spectator._
Refreshment-, boarding-, and lodging-house keepers have suffered
severely too.--_Westminster Gazette._
But imitations of foreign methods are not much to be recommended;
failing that, Lowell’s method seems the best--to use no hyphens, and
keep the second compound separate.
Adverbs that practically form compounds with verbs, but stand after,
and not necessarily next after them, need not be hyphened unless
they would be ambiguous in the particular sentence if they were
not hyphened. This may often happen, since most of them are also
prepositions; but even then, it is better to rearrange the sentence
than to hyphen.
He gratefully hands-over the establishment to his country.--MEREDITH.
Thoughtful persons, unpledged to shore-up tottering dogmas.--HUXLEY.
It is a much commoner fault to over-hyphen than to under-hyphen. But
in the next example _malaria-infected_ must be written, by 3. And
in the next again, one of the differentiations we have spoken of is
disregarded; _the fifty first_ means the fifty that come first: _the
fifty-first_ is the one after fifty. The ambiguity in the third example
is obvious.
The demonstration that a malaria infected mosquito, transported a
great distance to a non-malarial country, can....--_Times._
‘Nothing serious, I hope? How do cars break down?’ ‘In fifty different
ways. Only mine has chosen the fifty first.’--KIPLING.
The Cockney knew what the Lord of Session knew not, that the British
public is gentility crazy.--BORROW.
There comes a time when compound words that have long had a hyphen
should drop it; this is when they have become quite familiar. It seems
absurd to keep any longer the division in _to-day_ and _to-morrow_;
there are no words in the language that are more definitely single
and not double words; so much so that the ordinary man can give no
explanation of the _to_. On the other hand, the word italicized in the
next example may well puzzle a good many readers without its hyphen;
it has quite lately come into use in this country (‘Chiefly U.S.’ says
the _Oxford Dictionary_, which prints the hyphen, whereas Webster does
not), and is in danger of being taken at first sight for a foreign word
and pronounced in strange ways.
The soldiers ... have been building _dugouts_ throughout
April.--_Times._
There is a tendency to write certain familiar combinations
irrationally, which may be mentioned here, though it does not
necessarily involve the hyphen. With _in no wise_ and _at any rate_,
the only rational possibilities are to treat them like _nevertheless_
as one word, or like _none the less_ as three words (the right way, by
usage), or give them two hyphens. _Nowise_ and _anyrate_ are not nouns
that can be governed by _in_ and _at_.
Don McTaggart was the only man on his estate whom Sir Tempest could in
nowise make afraid.--CROCKETT.
French rules of neutrality are in nowise infringed by the
squadron.--_Times._
At anyrate.--CORELLI, _passim_.
QUOTATION MARKS
Quotation marks, like hyphens, should be used only when necessary.
The degree of necessity will vary slightly with the mental state of
the audience for whom a book is intended. To an educated man it is
an annoyance to find his author warning him that something written
long ago, and quoted every day almost ever since, is not an original
remark now first struck out. On the other hand, writers who address
the uneducated may find their account in using all the quotation
marks they can; their readers may be gratified by seeing how well read
the author is, or may think quotation marks decorative. The following
examples start with the least justifiable uses, and stop at the point
where quotation marks become more or less necessary.
John Smith, Esq., ‘Chatsworth’, Melton Road, Leamington.
The implication seems to be: living in the house that sensible people
call 164 Melton Road, but one fool likes to call Chatsworth.
How is it that during the year in which that scheme has been, so to
speak, ‘in the pillory’, no alternative has, at any rate, been made
public?--_Times._
Every metaphor ought to be treated as a quotation, if _in the pillory_
is to be. Here, moreover, quotation marks are a practical tautology,
after _so to speak_.
Robert Brown and William Marshall, convicted of robbery with
violence, were sentenced respectively to five years’ penal servitude
and eighteen strokes with the ‘cat’, and seven years’ penal
servitude.--_Times._
There is by this time no danger whatever of confusion with the cat of
one tail.
... not forgetful of how soon ‘things Japanese’ would be things of the
past for her.--SLADEN.
This may be called the propitiatory use, analogous in print to the
tentative air with which, in conversation, the Englishman not sure of
his pronunciation offers a French word. So trifling a phrase is not
worth using at the cost of quotation marks. If it could pass without,
well and good.
So that the prince and I were able to avoid that ‘familiarity
that breeds contempt’ by keeping up our own separate
establishments.--CORELLI.
... the Rector, lineal representative of the ancient monarchs of
the University, though now, little more than a ‘king of shreds and
patches’.--HUXLEY.
We agree pretty well in our tastes and habits--yet so, as ‘with a
difference’.--LAMB.
_With a difference_ (_Ophelia_: O, you must wear your rue with a
difference) might escape notice as a quotation if attention were not
drawn to it. A reader fit to appreciate Lamb, however, could scarcely
fail to be sufficiently warned by the odd turn of the preceding words.
* * * * *
A question of some importance to writers who trouble themselves about
accuracy, though no doubt the average reader is profoundly indifferent,
is that of the right order as between quotation marks and stops.
Besides the conflict in which we shall again find ourselves with the
aesthetic compositor, it is really difficult to arrive at a completely
logical system. Before laying down what seems the best attainable, we
must warn the reader that it is not the system now in fashion; but
there are signs that printers are feeling their way towards better
things, and this is an attempt to anticipate what they will ultimately
come to. We shall make one or two postulates, deduce rules, and give
examples. After the examples (in order that readers who are content
either to go on with the present compromise or to accept our rules
may be able to skip the discussion), we shall consider some possible
objections.
No stop is ever required at the end of a quotation to separate the
quotation, as such, from what follows; that is sufficiently done by the
quotation mark.
A stop is required to separate the containing sentence, which may go
on beyond the quotation’s end, but more commonly does not, from what
follows.
An exclamation or question mark--which are not true stops, but tone
symbols--may be an essential part of the quotation.
When a quotation is broken by such insertions as _he said_, any stop or
tone symbol may be an essential part of the first fragment of quotation.
No stop is needed at either end of such insertions as _he said_ to
part them from the quotation, that being sufficiently done by the
quotation marks.
From these considerations we deduce the following rules:
1. The true stops should never stand before the second quotation mark
except
(_a_) when, as in dialogue given without framework, complete sentences
entirely isolated and independent in grammar are printed as quotations.
Even in these, it must be mentioned that the true stops are strictly
unnecessary; but if the full stop (which alone can here be in question)
is used in deference to universal custom, it should be before the
quotation mark.
(_b_) when a stop is necessary to divide the first fragment of an
interrupted quotation from the second.
2. Words that interrupt quotations should never be allowed stops to
part them from the quotation.
3. The tone symbols should be placed before or after the second
quotation mark according as they belong to the quotation or to the
containing sentence. If both quotation and containing sentence need a
tone symbol, both should be used, with the quotation mark between them.
The bracketed numbers before the examples repeat the numbers of the
rules.
(1) Views advocated by Dr. Whately in his well-known ‘Essays’;
It is enough for us to reflect that ‘Such shortlived wits do wither as
they grow’.
We hear that ‘whom the gods love die young’, and thenceforth we
collect the cases that illustrate it.
(1 _a_) ‘You are breaking the rules.’ ‘Well, the rules are silly.’
(1 _b_) ‘Certainly not;’ he exclaimed ‘I would have died rather’.
(2) ‘I cannot guess’ he retorted ‘what you mean’.
(3) But ‘why drag in Velasquez?’
But what is the use of saying ‘Call no man happy till he dies’?
Is the question ‘Where was he?’ or ‘What was he doing?’?
How absurd to ask ‘Can a thing both be and not be?’!
If indignation is excited by the last two monstrosities, we can only
say what has been implied many other times in this book, that the
right substitute for correct ugliness is not incorrect prettiness,
but correct prettiness. There is never any difficulty in rewriting
sentences like these. (Is the question where he was, &c.?) (‘Can a
thing both be and not be?’ The question is absurd.) But it should be
recognized that, if such sentences are to be written, there is only one
way to punctuate them.
It may be of interest to show how these sentences stand in the books.
1st sentence (‘Essays;’); 2nd (grow.’); 3rd (young,’); 4th, as here;
5th (not,’ he exclaimed;) (rather.’); 6th (guess,’ he retorted,)
(mean.’); 7th (Velasquez’?); 8th (saying,) (dies?’). The last two are
fabricated.
The objections may now be considered.
‘The passing crowd’ is a phrase coined in the spirit of indifference.
Yet, to a man of what Plato calls ‘universal sympathies,’ and even
to the plain, ordinary denizens of this world, what can be more
interesting than ‘the passing crowd’?--B.
After giving this example, Beadnell says:--‘The reason is clear: the
words quoted are those of another, but the _question_ is the writer’s
own. Nevertheless, for the sake of neatness, the ordinary points, such
as the comma, semicolon, colon, and full stop, _precede_ the quotation
marks in instances analogous to the one quoted; but the exclamation
follows the same rule as the interrogation’.
Singularly enough, the stops that are according to this always to
precede the quotation mark (for the ‘analogous cases’ are the only
cases in which the outside position would be so much as considered) are
just the ones that by our rules ought hardly ever to do so, whereas the
two that are sometimes allowed the outside position are the two that we
admit to be as often necessary inside as outside. Neatness is the sole
consideration; just as the ears may be regarded as not hearing organs,
but ‘handsome volutes of the human capital’, so quotation marks may be
welcomed as giving a good picturesque finish to a sentence; those who
are of this way of thinking must feel that, if they allowed outside
them anything short of fine handsome stops like the exclamation and
question marks, they would be countenancing an anticlimax. But they
are really mere conservatives, masquerading only as aesthetes; and
their conservatism will soon have to yield. Argument on the subject is
impossible; it is only a question whether the printer’s love for the
old ways that seem to him so neat, or the writer’s and reader’s desire
to be understood and to understand fully, is to prevail.
Another objector takes a stronger position. He admits that logic, and
not beauty, must decide: ‘but before we give up the old, let us be
sure we are giving it up for a new that is logical’. He invites our
attention to the recent paragraph containing Beadnell’s views. ‘Why,
in the last sentence of that paragraph, is the full stop outside?
“But the exclamation follows the same rule as the interrogation” is
a complete sentence, quoted; why should its full stop be separated
from it?’ The answer is that the full stop is not _its_ full stop;
_it_ needs no stop, having its communications forward absolutely
cut off by the quotation mark. It is a delusion to suppose that any
sentence has proprietary rights in a stop, though it may have in a
tone symbol; a stop is placed after it merely to separate it from what
follows, if necessary.--‘And the full stop after every last sentence
(not a question or exclamation) of a paragraph, chapter, or book?’--Is
illogical, and only to be allowed, like those in the isolated
quotations mentioned in rule (1 _a_), in deference to universal custom.
Our full stop belongs, not to the last sentence of the quotation,
but to the paragraph, which is all one sentence, the whole quotation
simply playing the part, helped by the quotation marks, of object to
_says_.--‘But _says_ is followed by a colon, and a colon between verb
and object breaks your own rules.’--No; (:--) is something different
from a stop; it is an extra quotation mark, as much a conventional
symbol as the full stop in M.A. and other abbreviations.--‘Well, then,
instead of _says_, read _continues_, to which the quotation clearly
cannot be object; will that affect our full stop?’--No; the quotation
will still be part of the sentence; not indeed a noun, as before,
and object to the verb; but an adverb, simply equivalent to _thus_,
attached to the verb.
Satisfied on that point, the objector takes up our statement that
the quotation mark cuts communications; a similar statement was made
in the _Dashes_ section about brackets and double dashes. He submits
a quotation:--Some people ‘grunt and sweat under’ very easy burdens
indeed; and a pair of brackets:--It is (not a little learning, but)
much conceit that is a dangerous thing. ‘It is surely not true that
either quotation mark or bracket cuts the communications there;
_under_ in the quotation, _but_ in the brackets, are in very active
communication with _burdens_ and _conceit_, outside.’ The answer
is that these are merely convenient misuses of quotation marks
and brackets. A quotation and a parenthesis should be complete
in themselves, and instances that are not so may be neglected in
arguing out principles. Special rules might indeed be required in
consequence for the abnormal cases; but in practice this is not so with
quotations.--‘A last point. To adapt one of your instances, here are
two sets of sentences, stopped as I gather you would stop them:--(1) He
asked me “Can a thing both be and not be?” The question is absurd. (2)
He said “A thing cannot both be and not be”. I at once agreed. Now, if
the full stop is required after the quotation mark in the second, it
must be required after that in the first, in each case to part, not the
quotation, but the containing sentence, from the next sentence. What
right have you to omit the full stop in the first?’--None whatever; it
will not be omitted.--‘So we have an addition of some importance to the
monstrosities you said we should have to avoid.’--Well, sentences of
this type are not common except in a style of affected simplicity.--‘Or
real simplicity. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of
Jonas, lovest thou me? And is there any particular simplicity, real or
affected, about this:--(Richmond looked at him with an odd smile for a
moment or two before asking, as if it were the most natural question in
the world, “But is it true?”.)?’--In the Bible quotation there is, as
you say, real simplicity--or rather there was. That sort of simplicity
now would not be real, but artificial. Any one who has good reason to
imitate primitive style may imitate primitive punctuation too. But one
step forward in precision we have definitely taken from the biblical
typography: we should insist on quotation marks in such a sentence.
They do not seem pedantic or needless now; nor will a further step in
precision seem so when once it has been taken. And as to your Richmond
sentence, and ‘monstrosities’ in general, it may be confessed here,
as we are out of hearing in this discussion of all but those who are
really interested, that the word was used for the benefit only of those
who are indifferent. A sentence with two stops is not a monstrosity, if
it wants them; and that will be realized, if once sensible punctuation
gets the upper hand of neatness.
These are the most plausible objections on principle to a system of
using quotation marks with stops that would be in the main logical.
It may be thought, however, that it was our business to be practical
and opportunist, and suggest nothing that could not be acted on at
once. But general usage, besides being illogical, is so inconsistent,
different writers improving upon it in special details that appeal to
them, that it seemed simpler to give our idea of what would be the best
attainable, and trust to the tiro’s adopting any parts of it that may
not frighten him by their unaccustomed look.
* * * * *
There are single and double quotation marks, and, apart from minor
peculiarities, two ways of utilizing the variety. The prevailing one is
to use double marks for most purposes, and single ones for quotations
within quotations, as:--“Well, so he said to me ‘What do you mean by
it?’ and I said ‘I didn’t mean anything’”. Some of those who follow
this system also use the single marks for isolated words, short
phrases, and anything that can hardly be called a formal quotation;
this avoids giving much emphasis to such expressions, which is an
advantage. The more logical method is that adopted, for instance, by
the Oxford University Press, of reserving the double marks exclusively
for quotations within quotations. Besides the loss of the useful
degrees in emphasis (sure, however, to be inconsistently utilized),
there is a certain lack of full-dress effect about important quotations
when given this way; but that is probably a mere matter of habituation.
It should be mentioned that most of the quoted quotations in this
section had originally the double marks, but have been altered to
suit the more logical method; and the unpleasantness of the needless
quotation marks with which we started has so been slightly toned down.
* * * * *
A common mistake, of no great importance, but resulting in more or less
discomfort or perplexity to the reader, is the placing of the first
quotation mark earlier than the place where quotation really begins.
The commonest form of it is the including of the quoter’s introductory
_that_, which it is often obvious that the original did not contain.
Generally speaking, if _that_ is used the quotation marks may be
dispensed with; not, however, if the exact phraseology is important;
but at least the mark should be in the right place.
I remember an old scholastic aphorism, which says, ‘that the man
who lives wholly detached from others, must be either an angel or a
devil.’--BURKE.
As the aphorism descends through Latin from Aristotle (ἢ θηρίον
ἢ θεός), the precise English Words are of no importance, and the
quotation marks might as well be away; at least the first should be
after _that_.
Then, with ‘a sarvant, sir’ to me, he took himself into the
kitchen.--BORROW.
Clearly _a_ is not included in the quotation.
They make it perfectly clear and plain, he informed the House, that
‘Sir Antony MacDonnell was invited by him, rather as a colleague than
as a mere Under-Secretary, to register my will.’--_Times._
The change from _him_ to _my_ would be quite legitimate if the first
quotation mark stood before _rather_ instead of where it does; as it
stands, it is absurd.
It is long since he partook of the Holy Communion, though there was an
Easterday, of which he writes, when ‘he might have remained quietly in
(his) corner during the office, if...’.--_Times._
The (_his_) is evidently bracketed to show that it is substituted for
the original writer’s _my_. This is very conscientious; but it follows
that either the same should have been done for _he_, or the quotation
mark should be after _he_.
* * * * *
We began this section by saying that quotation marks should be used
only when necessary. A question that affects the decision to some
extent is the difference between direct, indirect, and half-and-half
quotation. We can say (1) He said ‘I will go’. (2) He said he would go.
(3) He said ‘he would go’. The first variety is often necessary for the
sake of vividness. The third is occasionally justified when, though
there is no occasion for vividness, there is some turn of phrase that
it is important for the reader to recognize as actually originating,
not with the writer, but with the person quoted; otherwise, that
variety is to be carefully avoided; how disagreeable it is will appear
in the example below. For ordinary purposes the second variety, which
involves no quotation marks, is the best.
He then followed my example, declared he never felt more refreshed in
his life, and, giving a bound, said, ‘he would go and look after his
horses.’--BORROW.
Further, there may be quotation, not of other people’s words, but of
one’s own thoughts. In this case the method prevailing at present is
that exemplified in the _Times_ extract below. Taken by itself, there
is no objection to it. We point out, however, that it is irreconcilable
with the principles explained in this section, which demand the
addition of a full stop (derived?.). That would be a worse monstrosity
than the one in the first of the three legitimate alternatives that we
add. We recommend that the _Times_ method should be abandoned, and the
first or second of the others used according to circumstances.
The next question is, Whence is this income derived?--_Times._
The next question is ‘Whence is this income derived?’. (Full direct
quotation. Observe the ‘monstrosity’ stop)
The next question is whence this income is derived. (Indirect
quotation)
The next question is ‘Whence this income is derived’. (Indirect
quotation with quotation marks, or half-and-half quotation, like the
Borrow sentence)
In concluding the chapter on Punctuation we may make the general remark
that the effect of our recommendations, whether advocating as in the
last section more strictness, or as in other parts more liberty, would
be, certainly, a considerable reduction in the number of diacritical
marks cutting up and disfiguring the text; and, as we think, a practice
in most respects more logical and comprehensible.
FOOTNOTES:
[12] See chapter _Syntax_, section _Relatives_.
[13] Of course, however, the rhetorical question is often not, as here,
the result of a confusion, nor to be described as ‘very artificial’. E.
g., _What would I not give to be there?_ _To what subterfuge has he not
resorted?_
PART II
Some less important chapters had been designed on Euphony, Ambiguity,
Negligence, and other points. But as the book would with them have run
to too great length, some of the examples have been simply grouped here
in independent sections, with what seemed the minimum of comment.
1. JINGLES
To read his tales is a bapt_ism_ of optim_ism_.--_Times._
Sensation is the dir_ect_ eff_ect_ of the _mo_de of _mo_tion of the
sensorium.--HUXLEY.
There have been no periodi_cal_ gener_al_ physi_cal_
catastrophes.--HUXLEY.
It is con_tended_, indeed, that these preparations are in_tended_
only....--_Times._
It is in_tend_ed to ex_tend_ the system to this country.--_Times._
M. Sphakianakis con_ducted_ pro_tracted_ negotiations.--_Times._
Those inalienable rights of life, liber_ty_ and proper_ty_ upon which
the safe_ty_ of socie_ty_ depends.--CHOATE.
He served his apprenticeship to statesmanship.--BRYCE.
Ap_par_ently pre_par_ed to hold its ground.--_Times._
I awaited a belated train.--R. G. WHITE.
Hand them on silver salvers to the server.--E. F. BENSON.
... adjourned the discus_sion_ of the ques_tion_ of dela_tion_ until
to-day.--_Times._
In this house of pover_ty_ and digni_ty_, of past grandeur and present
simplici_ty_, the brothers lived together in uni_ty_.--H. CAINE.
Their invalidi_ty_ was caused by a technicali_ty_.--_Times._
... had for consola_tion_ the expan_sion_ of its
domin_ion_.--_Spectator._
The essential founda_tion_ of all the organiza_tion_ needed for the
promo_tion_ of educa_tion_.--HUXLEY.
The projects of M. Witte _re_lative to the _re_gul_ation_ of the
_re_l_ations_ between capital and labour.--_Times._
The remaining instances are of consecutive adverbs in _-ly_. Parallel
adverbs, qualifying the same word simultaneously, do not result in
a jingle; but in all our instances the two adverbs either qualify
different words, or qualify the same word at different times. Thus,
in the Huxley sentence, _unquestionably_ either qualifies _is_, or
qualifies _true_ only after _largely_ has qualified it: it is not the
(universal) truth, but the partial truth, of the proposition that is
unquestionable.
When the traffic in our streets becomes entirely mechanically
propelled.--_Times._
He lived practically exclusively on milk.--E. F. BENSON.
Critics would probably decidedly disagree.--HUTTON.
The children are functionally mentally defective.--_Times._
What is practically wholly and entirely the British commerce and
trade.--_Times._
... who answered, usually monosyllabically, ....--E. F. BENSON.
The policy of England towards Afghanistan is, as formerly, entirely
friendly.--_Times._
Money spent possibly unwisely, probably illegally, and certainly
hastily.--_Times._
The deer are necessarily closely confined to definite areas.--_Times._
We find Hobbes’s view ... tolerably effectively combated.--MORLEY.
Great mental endowments do not, unhappily, necessarily involve a
passion for obscurity.--H. G. WELLS.
The proposition of Descartes is unquestionably largely true.--HUXLEY.
2. ALLITERATION
Alliteration is not much affected by modern prose writers of any
experience; it is a novice’s toy. The antithetic variety has probably
seen its best days, and the other instances quoted are doubtless to be
attributed to negligence.
I must needs trudge at every old _beldam’s bidding_ and every young
_minx’s maggot_.--SCOTT.
Onward _gl_ided Dame Ursula, now in _gl_immer and now in
_gl_oom.--SCOTT.
I have seen her in the same day as changeful as a _m_armozet, and as
stubborn as a _m_ule.--SCOTT.
Thus, in _con_sequence of the _con_tinuance of that grievance,
the means of education at the disposal of the _Pr_otestants and
_Pr_esbyterians were _st_unted and _st_erilized.--BALFOUR.
A gaunt well with a shattered pent-house _dw_arfed the _dw_elling.--H.
G. WELLS.
It shall be lawful to _p_icket _p_remises for the _p_urpose of
_p_eacefully _p_ersuading any _p_erson to....--_Times._
3. REPEATED PREPOSITIONS
The founders _of_ the study _of_ the origin _of_ human
culture.--MORLEY.
After the manner _of_ the author _of_ the immortal speeches _of_
Pericles.--MORLEY.
Togo’s announcement _of_ the destruction _of_ the fighting power _of_
Russia’s Pacific squadron.--_Times._
The necessity _of_ the modification _of_ the system _of_
administration.--_Times._
An exaggeration _of_ the excesses _of_ the epoch _of_
sentimentalism.--MORLEY.
Hostile to the justice _of_ the principle _of_ the taxing _of_ those
values which....--LORD ROSEBERY.
The observation _of_ the facts _of_ the geological succession _of_ the
forms _of_ life.--HUXLEY.
Devoid _of_ any accurate knowledge _of_ the mode _of_ development _of_
many groups _of_ plants and animals.--HUXLEY.
One uniform note _of_ cordial recognition _of_ the complete success
_of_ the experiment.--_Times._
The first fasciculus _of_ the second volume _of_ the Bishop _of_
Salisbury’s critical edition _of_ St. Jerome’s Revision _of_ the Latin
New Testament.--_Times._
The appreciation _of_ the House _of_ the benefits derived _by_
the encouragement afforded _by_ the Government to the operations
_of_....--_Times._
The study _of_ the perfectly human theme _of_ the affection _of_ a man
_of_ middle age.--_Times._
His conviction _of_ the impossibility _of_ the proposal either _of_
the creation _of_ elective financial boards....--_Daily Express._
Representative _of_ the mind _of_ the age _of_ literature.--RUSKIN.
Indignation _against_ the worst offenders _against_....--_Times._
A belief _in_ language _in_ harmony with....--_Daily Telegraph._
The opposition ... _to_ the submission _to_ the claims.--_Times._
Taken up _with_ warfare _with_ an enemy....--FREEMAN.
Palmerston wasted the strength derived _by_ England _by_ the great war
_by_ his brag.--GRANVILLE.
Unpropitious _for_ any project _for_ the reduction....--_Times._
Called _upon_ to decide _upon_ the reduction....--_Times._
4. SEQUENCE OF RELATIVES
A garret, in _which_ were two small beds, in one of _which_ she gave
me to understand another gentleman slept.--BORROW.
Still no word of enlightenment had come _which_ should pierce the
thick clouds of doubt _which_ hid the face of the future.--E. F.
BENSON.
The ideal of a general alphabet ... is one _which_ gives a basis
_which_ is generally acceptable.--H. SWEET.
He enjoyed a lucrative practice, _which_ enabled him to maintain and
educate a family with all the advantages _which_ money can give in
this country.--TROLLOPE.
The clown _who_ views the pandemonium of red brick _which_ he has
built on the estate _which_ he has purchased.--BORROW.
The main thread of the book, _which_ is a daring assault upon that
serious kind of pedantry _which_ utters itself in....--L. STEPHEN.
Practical reasons _which_ combine to commend this architectural
solution of a problem _which_ so many of us dread....--_Times._
The teachers, _who_ took care that the weaker, _who_ might otherwise
be driven to the wall, had ... their fair share.--_Times._
Let the heads and rulers of free peoples tell this truth to
a Tsar _who_ seeks to dominate a people _who_ will not and
cannot....--_Times._
He made a speech ... _which_ contained a passage on the conditions of
modern diplomacy _which_ attracted some attention.--_Times._
There is of course no objection to the recurrence when the relatives
are parallel.
5. SEQUENCE OF ‘THAT’ OR OTHER CONJUNCTIONS
Here, as with relatives, the recurrence is objectionable only when one
of the clauses is subordinate to the other.
I do not forget _that_ some writers have held _that_ a system is to be
inferred.--BALFOUR.
I say _that_ there is a real danger _that_ we may run to the other
extreme.--HUXLEY.
It is clear ... _that_ the opinion was _that_ it is not
incompatible.--NANSEN.
I find _that_ the view _that_ Japan has now a splendid opportunity ...
is heartily endorsed.--_Times._
I must point out _that_ it is a blot on our national education _that_
we have serving....--_Times._
The Chairman replied to the allegation made by the Radical press to
the effect _that_ the statement _that_ the British workman will not
work as an unskilled labourer in the mines is inaccurate.--_Times._
An official telegram states _that_ General Nogi reports
_that_....--_Times._
The conviction _that_ the Tsar must realize _that_ the prestige of
Russia is at stake.--_Times._
He was so carried away by his discovery _that_ he ventured on the
assertion _that_ the similarity between the two languages was so great
_that_ an educated German could understand whole strophes of Persian
poetry.--H. SWEET.
I may fairly claim to have no personal interest in defending
the council, _although_ I believe, _though_ I am not certain,
that....--_Times._
6. METRICAL PROSE
The novice who is conscious of a weakness for the high-flown and the
inflated should watch narrowly for metrical snatches in his prose; they
are a sure sign that the fit is on him.
Oh, moralists, who treat of happiness / and self-respect, innate in
every sphere / of life, and shedding light on every grain / of dust
in God’s highway, so smooth below / your carriage-wheels, so rough
beneath the tread / of naked feet, bethink yourselves / in looking
on the swift descent / of men who _have_ lived in their own esteem,
/ that there are scores of thousands breathing now, / and breathing
thick with painful toil, who in / that high respect have never lived
at all, / nor had a chance of life! Go ye, who rest / so placidly upon
the sacred Bard / who had been young, and when he strung his harp /
was old, ... / go, Teachers of content and honest pride, / into the
mine, the mill, the forge, / the squalid depths of deepest ignorance,
/ and uttermost abyss of man’s neglect, / and say can any hopeful
plant spring up / in air so foul that it extinguishes / the soul’s
bright torch as fast as it is kindled! /--DICKENS.
But now,--now I have resolved to stand alone,--/ fighting my battle
as a man should fight, / seeking for neither help nor sympathy, / and
trusting not in self....--CORELLI.
And the gathering orange stain / upon the edge of yonder western peak,
/ reflects the sunsets of a thousand years.--RUSKIN.
His veins were opened; but he talked on still / while life was slowly
ebbing, and was calm / through all the agony of lingering death.--W.
W. CAPES.
Can I then trust the evidence of sense? / And art thou really to my
wish restored? / Never, oh never, did thy beauty shine / with such
bewitching grace, as that which now / confounds and captivates my
view! / ... Where hast thou lived? where borrowed this perfection? /
... Oh! I am all amazement, joy and fear! / Thou wilt not leave me!
No! we must not part / again. By this warm kiss! a thousand times
/ more sweet than all the fragrance of the East! / we never more
will part. O! this is rapture! / ecstasy! and what no language will
explain--SMOLLETT.
7. SENTENCE ACCENT
It is only necessary to read aloud any one of the sentences quoted
below, to perceive at once that there is something wrong with its
accentuation. To lay down rules on this point would be superfluous,
even if it were practicable; for in all doubtful cases the ear can
and should decide. A writer who cannot trust himself to balance his
sentences properly should read aloud all that he writes. It is useless
for him to argue that readers will not read his work aloud, and that
therefore the fault of which we are speaking will escape notice. For,
although the fault may appear to be exclusively one of sound, it
is always in fact a fault of sense: unnatural accentuation is only
the outward sign of an unnatural combination of thought. Thus, nine
readers out of ten would detect in a moment, without reading aloud,
the ill-judged structure in our first example: the writer has tried
to do two incompatible things at the same time, to describe in some
detail the appearance of his characters, and to begin a conversation;
the result is that any one reading the sentence aloud is compelled to
maintain, through several lines of new and essential information, the
tone that is appropriate only to what is treated as a matter of course.
The interrogative tone protests more loudly than any other against this
kind of mismanagement; but our examples will show that other tones are
liable to the same abuse.
The accentuation of each clause or principal member of a sentence
is primarily fixed by its relation to the other members: when the
internal claims of its own component parts clash with this fixed
accentuation--when, for instance, what should be read with a uniformly
declining accentuation requires for its own internal purposes a marked
rise and fall of accent--reconstruction is necessary to avoid a badly
balanced sentence. The passage from Peacock will illustrate this: after
_pupils_, and still more after _counterpoint_, the accentuation should
steadily decline to the end of the passage; but, conflicting with this
requirement, we have the exorbitant claims of a complete anecdote,
containing within itself an elaborately accented speech. To represent
the anecdote as an insignificant appendage to _pupils_ was a fault of
sense; it is revealed to the few who would not have perceived it by the
impossibility of reading the passage naturally.
‘Are Japanese Aprils always as lovely as this?’ asked the man in the
light tweed suit of two others in immaculate flannels with crimson
sashes round their waists and puggarees folded in cunning plaits round
their broad Terai hats.--D. SLADEN.
‘Here we are’, he said presently, after they had turned off the main
road for a while and rattled along a lane between high banks topped
with English shrubs, and looking for all the world like an outskirt of
Tunbridge Wells.--D. SLADEN.
I doubt if Haydn would have passed as a composer before a committee of
lords like one of his own pupils, who insisted on demonstrating to him
that he was continually sinning against the rules of counterpoint; on
which Haydn said to him, ‘I thought I was to teach you, but it seems
you are to teach me, and I do not want a preceptor’, and thereon he
wished his lordship a good morning.--PEACOCK.
She wondered at having drifted into the neighbourhood of a person
resembling in her repellent formal chill virtuousness a windy belfry
tower, down among those districts of suburban London or appalling
provincial towns passed now and then with a shudder, where the
funereal square bricks-up the church, that Arctic hen-mother sits
on the square, and the moving dead are summoned to their round of
penitential exercise by a monosyllabic tribulation-bell.--MEREDITH.
The verb _wonder_ presupposes the reader’s familiarity with the
circumstance wondered at; it will not do the double work of announcing
both the wonder and the thing wondered at. ‘I wondered at Smith’s being
there’ implies that my hearer knew that Smith was there; if he did
not, I should say ‘I was surprised to find...’. Accordingly, in this
very artificial sentence, the writer presupposes the inconceivable
question: ‘What were her feelings on finding that she had drifted
... tribulation-bell?’. To read a sentence of minute and striking
description with the declining accentuation that necessarily follows
the verb _wondered_ is of course impossible.
How doth the earth terrifie and oppress us with terrible earthquakes,
which are most frequent in China, Japan, and those eastern climes,
swallowing up sometimes six cities at once!--BURTON.
Of the many possible violations of sentence accent, one--common in
inferior writers--is illustrated in the next section.
8. CAUSAL ‘AS’ CLAUSES
There are two admissible kinds of causal ‘as’ clauses--the pure and the
mixed. The pure clause assigns as a cause some fact that is already
known to the reader and is sure to occur to him in the connexion: the
mixed assigns as a cause what is not necessarily known to the reader
or present in his mind; it has the double function of conveying a
new fact, and indicating its relation to the main sentence. Context
will usually decide whether an _as_ clause is pure or mixed; in the
following examples, it is clear from the nature of the two clauses that
the first is pure, the second mixed:
I have an edition with German notes; but that is of no use, as you do
not read German.
I caught the train, but afterwards wished I had not, as I presently
discovered that my luggage was left behind.
The second of these, it will be noticed, is unreadable, unless we slur
the _as_ to such an extent as practically to acknowledge that it ought
not to be there. The reason is that, although a pure clause may stand
at any point in the sentence, a mixed one must always precede the
main statement. The pure clause, having only the subordinate function
normally indicated by _as_, is subordinate in sense as well as in
grammar; and the declining accentuation with which it is accordingly
pronounced will not be interfered with wherever we may place it.
But the mixed clause has another function, that of conveying a new
fact, for which _as_ does not prepare us, and which entitles it to an
accentuation as full and as varied as that of the main statement. To
neutralize the subordinating effect of _as_, and secure the proper
accentuation, we must place the clause at the beginning; where this
is not practicable, _as_ should be removed, and a colon or semi-colon
used instead of a comma. Persistent usage tends of course to remove
this objection by weakening the subordinating power of conjunctions:
_because_, _while_, _whereas_, _since_, can be used where _as_ still
betrays a careless or illiterate writer. There is the same false ring
in all the following sentences:
I myself saw in the estate office of a large landed proprietor a
procession of peasant women begging for assistance, as owing to
the departure of the bread-winners the families were literally
starving.--_Times._
Remove _as_, and use a heavier stop.
Very true, Jasper; but you really ought to learn to read, as, by so
doing, you might learn your duty towards yourselves.--BORROW.
To read; by so doing, ....
There was a barber and hairdresser, who had been at Paris, and talked
French with a cockney accent, the French sounding all the better, as
no accent is so melodious as the Cockney.--BORROW.
Use a semicolon and ‘for’; the assertion requires all the support that
vigorous accentuation can lend.
One of the very few institutions for which the Popish Church
entertains any fear, and consequently respect, as it respects nothing
which it does not fear.--BORROW.
_For_ instead of _as_ will best suit this illogical and falsely
coordinated sentence.
Everybody likes to know that his advantages cannot be attributed to
air, soil, sea, or to local wealth, as mines and quarries, ... but to
superior brain, as it makes the praise more personal to him.--EMERSON.
Again the clause is a mixed one. The point of view it suggests is,
indeed, sufficiently obvious; but (unlike our typical pure clause
above--‘you do not know German’) it depends for its existence upon the
circumstances of the main sentence, which may or may not have occurred
to the reader before. The full accentuation with which the clause must
inevitably be read condemns it at once; use a colon, and remove _as_.
Pure clauses, being from their nature more or less otiose, belong
rather to the spoken than to the written language. It follows that a
good writer will seldom have a causal _as_ clause of any kind at the
end of a sentence. Two further limitations remain to be noticed:
i. When the cause, not the effect, is obviously the whole point of the
sentence, _because_, not _as_, should be used; the following is quite
impossible English:
I make these remarks as quick shooting at short ranges has lately been
so strongly recommended.--_Times._
ii. _As_ should be used only to give the cause of the thing asserted,
not the cause of the assertion, nor an illustration of its truth, as in
the following instances:
You refer me to the Encyclopaedia: you are mistaken, as I find the
Encyclopaedia exactly confirms my view.
The Oxford Coxswain did not steer a very good course here, as he kept
too close in to the Middlesex shore to obtain full advantage of the
tide; it made little difference, however, as his crew continued to
gain.--_Times._
My finding the Encyclopaedia’s confirmation was not the cause of
mistake, nor the keeping too close the cause of bad steering.
9. WENS AND HYPERTROPHIED MEMBERS
No sentence is to be condemned for mere length; a really skilful writer
can fill a page with one and not tire his reader, though a succession
of long sentences without the relief of short ones interspersed is
almost sure to be forbidding. But the tiro, and even the good writer
who is not prepared to take the trouble of reading aloud what he has
written, should confine himself to the easily manageable. The tendency
is to allow some part of a sentence to develop unnatural proportions,
or a half parenthetic insertion to separate too widely the essential
parts. The cure, indispensable for every one who aims at a passable
style, and infallible for any one who has a good ear, is reading aloud
after writing.
1. Disproportionate insertions.
Some simple eloquence distinctly heard, though only uttered in her
eyes, unconscious that he read them, as, ‘By the death-beds I have
tended, by the childhood I have suffered, by our meeting in this
dreary house at midnight, by the cry wrung from me in the anguish of
my heart, O father, turn to me and seek a refuge in my love before it
is too late!’ may have arrested them.--DICKENS.
Captain Cuttle, though no sluggard, did not turn so early on the
morning after he had seen Sol Gills, through the shopwindow, writing
in the parlour, with the Midshipman upon the counter, and Rob the
Grinder making up his bed below it, but that the clocks struck six
as he raised himself on his elbow, and took a survey of his little
chamber.--DICKENS.
A perpetual consequent warfare of her spirit and the nature subject
to the thousand sensational hypocrisies invoked for concealment of
its reviled brutish baseness, held the woman suspended from her
emotions.--MEREDITH.
Yesterday, before Dudley Sowerby’s visit, Nataly would have been
stirred where the tears which we shed for happiness or repress
at a flattery dwell when seeing her friend Mrs. John Cormyn
enter....--MEREDITH.
‘It takes’, it is said that Sir Robert Peel observed, ‘three
generations to make a gentleman’.--BAGEHOT.
Behind, round the windows of the lower story, clusters of clematis,
like large purple sponges, blossomed, miraculously fed through their
thin, dry stalks.--E. F. BENSON.
It is a striking exhibition of the power which the groups, hostile
in different degrees to a democratic republic, have of Parliamentary
combination.--_Spectator._
Sir,--With reference to the custom among some auctioneers and
surveyors of receiving secret commissions, which was recently brought
to light in a case before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy
and Ridley (King’s Bench Division), when the L. C. J. in giving
judgment for the defendants said:--Unfortunately in commercial
circles, in which prominent men played a part, extraordinary mistakes
occurred. But a principal who employed an agent to do work for him
employed him upon terms that the agent was not liable to get secret
commissions. The sooner secret commissions were not approved by an
honourable profession, the better it would be for commerce in all its
branches. I desire to take this opportunity....--_Times._
In the course of a conversation with a representative of the
_Gaulois_, Captain Klado, after repeating his views on the necessity
for Russia to secure the command of the sea which have already
appeared in the _Times_, replied as follows to a question as to
whether, after the new squadron in the course of formation at
Libau has reinforced Admiral Rozhdestvensky’s fleet, the Russian
and Japanese naval forces will be evenly balanced: [here follows
reply]--_Times._
2. Sentences of which the end is allowed to trail on to unexpected
length.
But though she could trust his word, the heart of the word went out
of it when she heard herself thanked by Lady Blachington (who could
so well excuse her at such a time for not returning her call, that
she called in a friendly way a second time, warmly to thank her)
for throwing open the Concert Room at Lakelands in August, to an
entertainment in assistance of the funds for the purpose of erecting
an East London Clubhouse, where the children of the poor by day could
play, and their parents pass a disengaged evening.--MEREDITH.
How to commence the ceremony might have been a difficulty, but for the
zeal of the American Minister, who, regardless of the fact that he
was the representative of a sister Power, did not see any question of
delicacy arise in his taking a prominent part in proceedings regarded
as entirely irregular by the representatives of the Power to which the
parties concerned belonged.--D. SLADEN.
The style holds the attention, but perhaps the most subtle charm of
the work lies in the inextricable manner in which fact is interwoven
with something else that is not exactly fiction, but rather fancy bred
of the artist’s talent in projecting upon his canvas his own view
of things seen and felt and lived through by those whose thoughts,
motives, and actions, he depicts.--_Times._
The cock-bustard that, having preened himself, paces before the hen
birds on the plains that he can scour when his wings, which are slow
in the air, join with his strong legs to make nothing of grassy
leagues on leagues.--_Times._
I don’t so much wonder at his going away, because, leaving out of
consideration that spice of the marvellous which was always in his
character, and his great affection for me, before which every other
consideration of his life became nothing, as no one ought to know
so well as I who had the best of fathers in him--leaving that out
of consideration, I say, I have often read and heard of people who,
having some near and dear relative, who was supposed to be shipwrecked
at sea, have gone down to live on that part of the seashore where any
tidings of the missing ship might be expected to arrive, though only
an hour or two sooner than elsewhere, or have even gone upon her track
to the place whither she was bound, as if their going would create
intelligence.--DICKENS.
What he had to communicate was the contents of despatches from Tokio
containing information received by the Japanese Government respecting
infringements of neutrality by the Baltic Fleet in Indo-Chinese waters
outside what are, strictly speaking, the territorial limits, and
principally by obtaining provisions from the shore.--_Times._
3. Decapitable sentences.
Perhaps the most exasperating form is that of the sentence that keeps
on prolonging itself by additional phrases, each joint of which gives
the reader hopes of a full stop.
It was only after the weight of evidence against the economic
success of the endeavour became overwhelming that our firm withdrew
its support /, and in conjunction with almost the entire British
population of the country concentrated its efforts on endeavouring to
obtain permission to increase the coloured unskilled labour supply
of the mines / so as to be in a position to extend mining operations
/, and thus assist towards re-establishing the prosperity of the
country /, while at the same time attracting a number of skilled
British artisans / who would receive not merely the bare living wage
of the white unskilled labourer, but a wage sufficient to enable these
artisans to bring their families to the country / and to make their
permanent home there.--_Westminster Gazette._
Here may still be seen by the watchful eye the Louisiana heron and
smaller egret, all that rapacious plume-hunters have left of their
race, tripping like timid fairies in and out the leafy screen / that
hides the rank jungle of sawgrass and the grisly swamp where dwells
the alligator /, which lies basking, its nostrils just level with the
dirty water of its bath, or burrows swiftly in the soft earth to evade
the pursuit of those who seek to dislodge it with rope and axe / that
they may sell its hide to make souvenirs for the tourists / who, at
the approach of summer, hie them north or east with grateful memories
of that fruitful land.--F. G. AFLALO.
Running after milkmaids is by no means an ungenteel rural diversion;
but let any one ask some respectable casuist (the Bishop of London,
for instance), whether Lavengro was not far better employed, when in
the country, at tinkering and smithery than he would have been in
running after all the milkmaids in Cheshire /, though tinkering is in
general considered a very ungenteel employment /, and smithery little
better /, notwithstanding that an Orcadian poet, who wrote in Norse
about 800 years ago, reckons the latter among nine noble arts which he
possessed /, naming it along with playing at chess, on the harp, and
ravelling runes /, or as the original has it, ‘treading runes’ /--that
is, compressing them into small compass by mingling one letter with
another /, even as the Turkish caligraphists ravel the Arabic letters
/, more especially those who write talismans.--BORROW.
10. CARELESS REPETITION
Conscious repetition of a word or phrase has been discussed in Part
I (Airs and Graces): in the following examples the repetition is
unconscious, and proves only that the writer did not read over what he
had written.
... a man ... who directly _impresses_ one with the
_impression_....--_Times._
For most _of them_ get rid _of them_ more or less completely.--H.
SWEET.
The most important distinction between dialogue on the one hand and
_purely_ descriptive and narrative pieces on the other hand is a
_purely_ grammatical one.--H. SWEET.
And it _may_ be that from a growing familiarity with Canadian winter
amusements _may_ in time spring an even warmer regard....--_Times._
It _may_ well induce the uncomfortable reflection that these
historical words _may_ prove....--_Times._
The inclusion of _adherents_ would be _adhered_ to.--_Times._
The _remainder remaining_ loyal, fierce fighting
commenced.--_Spectator._
Every subordinate shortcoming, every incidental defect, will be
_pardoned_. ‘Save us’ is the cry of the moment; and, in the confident
hope of safety, any deficiency will be overlooked, and any frailty
_pardoned_.--BAGEHOT.
They were _followed_ by jinrikshas _containing_ young girls with very
carefully-dressed hair, _carrying_ large bunches of real flowers on
their laps, _followed_ in turn by two more coolies _carrying_ square
white wooden jars, _containing_ huge silver tinsel flowers.--D. SLADEN.
It can do so, in all reasonable probability, _provided_ its militia
character is maintained. But in any case it will _provide_ us at home
with the second line army of our needs.--_Times._
_Dressed_ in a subtly ill-_dressed_, expensive mode.--E. F. BENSON.
Toodle being the _family_ name of the apple-faced _family_.--DICKENS.
Artillery firing _extends_ along the whole front, _extending_ for
eighty miles.--_Times._
I regard the action and conduct of the Ministry _as_ a whole _as_ of
far greater importance.--_Times._
The fleet passed the port _on its way_ through the Straits _on the
way_ to the China Sea.--_Times._
Much of his popularity he owed, we believe, to _that_ very timidity
_which_ his friends lamented. _That_ timidity often prevented him
from exhibiting his talents to the best advantage. But it propitiated
Nemesis. It averted _that_ envy _which_ would otherwise have been
excited....--MACAULAY.
I will lay down _a pen_ I am so little able to govern.--And I will try
to subdue _an impatience which_ ... may otherwise lead me into still
more punishable errors.--I will return to _a subject which_ I cannot
fly from for ten minutes together.--RICHARDSON.
At the same time it was largely _owing to_ his careful training that
so many great Etonian cricketers _owed_ their success.--_Times._
11. COMMON MISQUOTATIONS
These are excusable in talk, but not in print. A few pieces are given
correctly, with the usual wrong words in brackets.
An _ill-favoured_ thing, sir, but mine own. (poor)
_Fine_ by degrees and beautifully less. (small)
_That_ last infirmity of noble _mind_. (the: minds)
Make assurance _double_ sure. (doubly)
To-morrow to fresh _woods_ and pastures new. (fields)
The devil can _cite_ Scripture for his purpose. (quote)
Chewing the _food_ of sweet and bitter fancy. (cud)
When _Greeks joined Greeks_, then _was_ the tug of war. (Greek meets
Greek: comes)
A goodly apple rotten at the _heart_. (core)
12. UNCOMMON MISQUOTATIONS OF WELL-KNOWN PASSAGES OR PHRASES
It is still worse to misquote what is usually given right, however
informal the quotation. The true reading is here added in brackets.
Now for the trappings and the _weeds_ of woe.--_S. Ferrier._ (suits)
She had an instinctive knowledge that she knew her, and she felt her
genius _repressed_ by her, as _Julius Caesar’s_ was by _Cassius_.--S.
FERRIER. (My genius is _rebuked_ as, it is said, _Mark Antony’s_ was
by _Caesar_)
The new drama represented the very age and body of the time, his form
and _feature_.--_J. R. Green._ (pressure)
He lifts the veil from the sanguinary affair at Kinchau, and we are
allowed glimpses of blockade-running, train-wrecking and cavalry
reconnaissance, and of many other moving _incidents_ by flood and
field.--_Times._ (accidents)
To him this _rough_ world was but too literally a rack.--LOWELL. (who
would, upon the rack of this _tough_ world, stretch him out longer)
Having once begun, they found returning more tedious than _giving_
o’er.--LOWELL. (returning were as tedious as _go_ o’er)
_Posthaec_ [_sic_] meminisse juvabit.--HAZLITT. (et haec olim)
_Quid_ vult valde vult. What they do, they do with a will.--EMERSON.
(quod) Quid is not translatable.
Then that wonderful esprit _du_ corps, by which we adopt into our
self-love everything we touch.--EMERSON. (de)
Let not him that _putteth_ on his _armour boast_ as _him_ that
_taketh_ it off.--_Westminster Gazette._ (girdeth, harness, boast
himself, he, putteth)
Elizabeth herself, says Spenser, ‘to mine _open_ pipe inclined her
ear’.--J. R. GREEN. (oaten)
He could join the crew of Mirth, and look pleasantly on at a village
fair, ‘where the _jolly_ rebecks sound to many a youth and many a
maid, dancing in the chequered shade’.--J. R. GREEN. (jocund)
Heathen Kaffirs, et hoc genero, &c.: ....--_Daily Mail._ (genus omne)
If she takes her husband _au pied de lettre_.--_Westm. Gaz._ (de la
lettre)
13. Misquotation of Less Familiar Passages
But the greatest wrong is done to readers when a passage that may not
improbably be unknown to them is altered.
It was at Dublin or in his castle of Kilcolman, two miles from
Doneraile, ‘under the _fall_ of Mole, that mountain hoar’, that he
spent the memorable years in which....--J. R. GREEN. (foot)
_Petty_ spites of the village _squire_.--_Spectator._ (pigmy: spire)
14. Misapplied and Misunderstood Quotations and Phrases
Before _leading question or the exception proves the rule_ is written,
a lawyer should be consulted; before _cui bono_, Cicero; before _more
honoured in the breach than the observance_, Hamlet. A leading question
is one that unfairly helps a witness to the desired answer; cui bono
has been explained on p. 35; _the exception_, &c., is not an absurdity
when understood, but it is as generally used; _more honoured_, &c.,
means not that the rule is generally broken, but that it is better
broken. A familiar line of Shakespeare, on the other hand, gains by
being misunderstood: ‘One touch of nature makes the whole world kin’
merely means ‘In one respect, all men are alike’.
But _cui bono_ all this detail of our debt? Has the author given
a single light towards any material reduction of it? Not a
glimmering.--BURKE.
A rule dated March 3, 1801, which has never been abrogated, lays it
down that, to obtain formal leave of absence, a member must show some
sufficient cause, such as ... but this rule is more honoured in the
breach than in the observance.--_Times._
Every one knows that the Governor-General in Council is invested
by statute with the supreme command of the Army and that it would
be disastrous to subvert that power. But ‘why drag in Velasquez’?
If any one wishes us to infer that Lord Kitchener has, directly or
indirectly, proposed to subvert this unquestioned and unquestionable
authority, they are very much mistaken.--_Times._ (Why indeed? no
worse literary treason than to spoil other people’s wit by dragging it
in where it is entirely pointless. Velasquez here outrages those who
know the story, and perplexes those who do not)
The Nationalist, M. Archdeacon, and M. Meslier put to the Prime
Minister several _leading questions_, such as, ‘Why were you so
willing promptly to part with M. Delcassé, and why, by going to the
conference, did you agree to revive the debate as to the unmistakable
rights...?’ To these pertinent inquiries M. Rouvier did not
reply.--_Times._ (Leading questions are necessarily not hostile, as
these clearly were)
The happy phrase that an Ambassador is an honest man sent abroad to
lie for his country.--_Westminster Gazette._ (Happier when correctly
quoted: sent to lie abroad for the good of)
15. ALLUSION
A writer who abounds in literary allusions necessarily appeals to a
small audience, to those acquainted with about the same set of books
as himself; they like his allusions, others dislike them. Writers
should decide whether it is not wise to make their allusions explain
themselves. In the first two instances quoted, though the reader who
knows the original context has a slight additional pleasure, any one
can see what the point is. In the last two, those who have not the
honour of the wetnurse’s and Rosamund’s acquaintance feel that the
author and the other readers with whom he is talking aside are guilty
of bad manners.
The select academy, into whose sacred precincts the audacious Becky
Sharp flung back her leaving present of the ‘Dixonary’, survives here
and there, but with a different curriculum and a much higher standard
of efficiency.--_Times._
Why can’t they stay quietly at home till they marry, instead of
trying to earn their living by unfeminine occupations? So croaks Mrs.
Partington, twirling her mop; but the tide comes on.--_Times._
Sir,--Were it not for M. Kokovtsoff’s tetchiness in the matter of
metaphors, I should feel inclined to see in his protest against my
estimates of the decline in the Russian gold reserve and of the
increase of the note issue a variant of the classic excuse of Mrs.
Easy’s wetnurse for the unlawfulness of her baby.--LUCIEN WOLF.
Three superb glass jars--red, green, and blue--of the sort that led
Rosamund to parting with her shoes--blazed in the broad plate-glass
windows.--KIPLING.
16. INCORRECT ALLUSION
Every one who detects a writer pretending to more knowledge than he
has jumps to the conclusion that the detected must know less than the
detective, and cannot be worth his reading. Incorrect allusion of this
kind is therefore fatal.
Homer would have seemed arrogantly superior to his audience if he
had not called Hebe ‘white-armed’ or ‘ox-eyed’.--_Times._ (He seldom
mentions her, and calls her neither)
My access to fortune had not, so far, brought me either much joy or
distinction,--but it was not too late for me yet to pluck the golden
apples of Hesperides.--CORELLI. (It is hardly possible for any one who
knows what the Hesperides were to omit _the_)
My publisher, John Morgeson ... was not like Shakespeare’s Cassio
strictly ‘an honourable man’.--CORELLI. (Cassio was an honourable man,
but was never called so. Even Cassius has only his share in _So are
they all, all honourable men._ Brutus, perhaps?)
A sturdy Benedict to propose a tax on bachelors.--_Westminster
Gazette._ (Benedick. In spite of the _Oxford Dictionary_, the
differentiation between the saint, Benedict, and the converted
bachelor, Benedick, is surely not now to be given up)
But impound the car for a longer or shorter period according to the
offence, and that, as the French say, ‘will give them reason to
think’.--_Times._ (The French do not say _give reason to think_; and
if they did the phrase would hardly be worth treating as not English;
they say _give to think_, which is often quoted because it is unlike
English)
17. DOVETAILED AND ADAPTED QUOTATIONS AND PHRASES
The fitting into a sentence of refractory quotations, the making of
facetious additions to them, and the constructing of Latin cases with
English governing words, have often intolerably ponderous effects.
Though his denial of any steps in that direction may be true in his
official capacity, _there is probably some smoke in the fire of
comment_ to which his personal relations with German statesmen have
given rise.--_Times._ (The reversal of smoke and fire may be a slip of
the pen or a joke; but the correction of it mends matters little)
It remains to be seen whether ... the pied à terre which Germany
hopes she has won by her preliminary action in the Morocco question
will form the starting-point for further achievements or will merely
represent, like so many other German enterprises, _the end of the
beginning_.--_Times._ (The reversal this time is clearly facetious)
But they had gone on adding misdeed to misdeed, they had _blundered
after blunder_.--L. COURTNEY.
Germany has, it would appear, yet another card in her hand, a card _of
the kind which is useful to players when in doubt_.--_Times._
But the problem of inducing _a refractory camel_ to squeeze
himself through the eye of _an inconvenient needle_ is and remains
insoluble.--_Times._
But these unsoldierlike recriminations among the Russian officers as
well as their luxurious lives and their complete insouciance in the
presence of their country’s misfortunes, seems to have _set back the
hand on the dial of Japanese rapprochement_.--_Times._
Is there no spiritual purge to make the eye of the camel easier for a
South-African millionaire?--_Times._
And so it has come to pass that, not only _where invalids do
congregate_, but in places hitherto reserved for the summer recreation
of the tourist or the mountaineer there is a growing influx of winter
pleasure-seekers.--_Times._
Salmasius alone was not _unworthy sublimi flagello_.--LANDOR.
Even if a change were desirable _with Kitchener duce et
auspice_.--_Times._
Charged with carrying out the Military Member’s orders, but having,
_pace Sir Edwin Collen_, no authority of his own.--_Times._
It is not in the interests of the Japanese to close the book of the
war, until they have placed themselves in the position of beati
possidentes.--_Times._ (_Beati possidentes_ is a sentence, meaning
_Blessed are those who are in possession_; to fit it into another
sentence is most awkward)
Resignation became a virtue of necessity for Sweden in hopes that
a better understanding might in time grow out of the new order of
things.--_Times._ (In the original phrase, _of necessity_ does not
depend on _virtue_, but on _make_; and it is intolerable without the
word that gives it its meaning)
Many of the celebrities who in that most frivolous of watering-places
do congregate.--BARONESS VON HUTTEN.
If misbehaviour be not checked in an effectual manner before long,
there is every prospect that the whips of the existing Motor Act
will be transformed into the scorpions of the Motor Act of the
future.--_Times._
A special protest should be made against the practice of introducing a
quotation in two or three instalments of a word or two, each with its
separate suit of quotation marks. The only quotations that should be
cut up are those that are familiar enough to need no quotation marks,
so that the effect is not so jerky.
The ‘pigmy body’ seemed ‘fretted to decay’ by the ‘fiery soul’ within
it.--J. R. GREEN. (The original is:--
A fiery soul which, working out its way,
Fretted the pygmy-body to decay.--DRYDEN.)
18. Trite Quotation
Quotation may be material or formal. With the first, the writer quotes
to support himself by the authority (or to impugn the authority) of the
person quoted; this does not concern us. With the second, he quotes
to add some charm of striking expression or of association to his own
writing. To the reader, those quotations are agreeable that neither
strike him as hackneyed, nor rebuke his ignorance by their complete
novelty, but rouse dormant memories. Quotation, then, should be adapted
to the probable reader’s cultivation. To deal in trite quotations and
phrases therefore amounts to a confession that the writer either is
uncultivated himself, or is addressing the uncultivated. All who would
not make this confession are recommended to avoid (unless in some
really new or perverted application--notum si callida verbum reddiderit
junctura novum) such things as:
Chartered libertine; balm in Gilead; my prophetic soul; harmless
necessary; e pur si muove; there’s the rub; the curate’s egg; hinc
illae lacrimae; fit audience though few; a consummation devoutly to
be wished; more in sorrow than in anger; metal more attractive; heir
of all the ages; curses not loud but deep; more sinned against than
sinning; the irony of fate; the psychological moment; the man in the
street; the sleep of the just; a work of supererogation; the pity of
it; the scenes he loved so well; in her great sorrow; all that was
mortal of--; few equals and no superior; leave severely alone; suffer
a sea-change.
The plan partook of the nature of that of those ingenious islanders
who lived entirely by taking in each other’s washing.--E. F. BENSON.
For he was but moderately given to ‘the cups that cheer but not
inebriate’, and had already finished his tea.--ELIOT.
Austria forbids children to smoke in public places; and in German
schools and military colleges there are laws upon the subject;
France, Spain, Greece, and Portugal _leave_ the matter _severely
alone_.--_Westminster Gazette._ (_Severely_ is much worse than
pointless here)
They carried compulsory subdivision and restriction of all kinds
of skilled labour down to a degree _that would have been laughable
enough, if it had only been less destructive_.--MORLEY.
If Diderot had visited ... Rome, even the mighty painter of the Last
Judgment ... would have found an interpreter worthy of him. _But it
was not to be._--MORLEY.
Mr. de Sélincourt has, of course, _the defects of his
qualities_.--_Times._
The beloved _lustige Wien_ [Vienna, that is] of his youth had
_suffered a sea-change_. The green glacis down which Sobieski drove
the defeated besieging army of Kara Mustafa was blocked by ranges of
grand new buildings.--_Westminster Gazette._
19. LATIN ABBREVIATIONS, &c.
No one should use these who is not sure that he will not expose his
ignorance by making mistakes with them. Confusion is very common, for
instance, between _i. e._ and _e g._ Again, _sic_ should never be used
except when a reader might really suppose that there was a misprint or
garbling; to insert it simply by way of drawing attention and conveying
a sneer is a very heavy assumption of superiority. _Vide_ is only in
place when a book or dictionary article is being referred to.
Shaliapine, first bass at the same opera, has handed in his
resignation in consequence of this affair, and also because of affairs
in general, vide imprisonment of his great friend Gorki.--_Times._
The industrialist organ is inclined to regret that the league did not
fix some definite date such as the year 1910 (sic) or the year 1912,
for the completion of this programme.--_Times._ (This is the true use
of _sic_; as the years mentioned are not consecutive, a reader might
suppose that something was wrong; sic tells him that it is not so)
The _Boersen Courier_ ... maintains that ‘nothing remains for M.
Delcassé but to cry Pater peccavi to Germany and to retrieve as
quickly as possible his diplomatic mistake (_sic_)’.--_Times._
Let your principal stops be the full stop and comma, with a
judicious use of the semicolon and of the other stops where they are
absolutely necessary (_i. e._ you could not dispense with the note
of interrogation in asking questions).--BYGOTT & JONES. (_e. g._ is
wanted, not _i. e._)
20. UNEQUAL YOKEFELLOWS AND DEFECTIVE DOUBLE HARNESS
When a word admits of two constructions, to use both may not be
positively incorrect, but is generally as ugly as to drive a horse and
a mule in double harness.
They did not _linger in_ the long scarlet colonnades of the temple
itself, nor gazing at the dancing for which it is famous.--SLADEN.
This undoubtedly caused prices to rise; but did it not also _cause_
all _Lancashire to work_ short time, many _mills to close_, and a
great _restriction_ in the purchases of all our customers for cotton
goods?--_Times._
... _set herself_ quietly down _to the care_ of her own household, and
_to assist_ Benjamin in the concerns of his trade.--SCOTT.
This correspondent says that not only did the French Government
_know that Germany recognized_ the privileges resulting for France
from her position in Algeria, but also her general _views_ on the
work of reform which it would be the task of the conference to
examine.--_Times._
_Teach_ them the ‘_character_ of God’ through the ‘Son’s Life of
Love’, _that conscience_ must not be outraged, not because they would
be punished if they did, or because they would be handsomely rewarded
if they didn’t, but simply because they know a thing is right or
wrong....--_Daily Telegraph._
And any one who permits himself this incongruity is likely to be
betrayed into actual blunders.
The popularity of the parlements was surely due to the detestation
felt for the absolute Monarchy, and because they seemed to
half-informed men to be the champions of....--_Times._ (Here _because
they seemed_ does not really fit _the popularity ... was_, but
_parlements were popular_)
A difference, this, which was not much considered where and when the
end of the war was thought to be two or three years off, and that the
last blow would be Russia’s.--F. GREENWOOD. (The last clause does not
fit _the end of the war was thought_, but _it was thought_)
Attila and his armies, he said, came and disappeared in a very
mysterious manner, and _that_ nothing could be said with positiveness
about them.--BORROW.
Save him accordingly she did: but no sooner _is he dismissed_, and
_Faust has made_ a remark on the multitude of arrows which she is
darting forth on all sides, than Lynceus returns.--CARLYLE.
The short drives at the beginning of the course of instruction were
intended gradually _to accustom_ the novice to the speed, and _of
giving_ him in the pauses an opportunity to fix well in his mind the
principles of the automobile.--_Times._
The predecessors of Sir Antony MacDonnell ... were, to use the words
of the Prime Minister, ‘the aiders, advisers, and suggesters of their
official chiefs’.--_Times._ (Though a chief can have a suggester as
well as an adviser, _adviser_ is naturally followed by an objective
genitive, but _suggester_ can only be followed by a possessive
genitive--except of the suggestion made)
My assiduities expose me rather to her scorn ... than to the treatment
due to a man.--RICHARDSON.
One worthy gentleman, who is, perhaps, _better known than popular_ in
City restaurants, is never known to have lavished even the humblest
copper coin on a waiter.--_Titbits._
Its hands require strengthening and its resources increased.--_Times._
Analogous, but always incorrect, though excusable in various degrees,
is the equipping of pairs that should obviously be in double harness
with conjunctions or prepositions that do not match--following
_neither_ by _or_, _both_ by _as well as_, and the like.
Diderot presented a bouquet which was _neither_ well _or_ ill
received.--MORLEY.
Like the Persian noble of old, I ask, ‘that I may _neither_ command
_or_ obey’.--EMERSON.
She would hear _nothing_ of a declaration of war, _or_ give any
judgment on....--J. R. GREEN.
It appears, then, that _neither_ the mixed and incomplete empiricism
considered in the third chapter, _still less_ the pure empiricism
considered in the second chapter, affords us....--BALFOUR.
_Scarcely_ was the nice new drain finished _than_ several of the
children sickened with diphtheria.--_Spectator._
Which differs from that and who in being used _both_ as an adjective
_as well as_ a noun.--H. SWEET.
M. Shipoff _in one and the same breath_ denounces innovations, _yet_
bases the whole electoral system on the greatest innovation in Russian
history.--_Times._
It would be _equally_ absurd to attend to all the other parts of
an engine and to neglect the principal source of its energy--the
firebox--_as_ it is ridiculous to pay particular attention
to the cleanliness of the body and to neglect the mouth and
teeth.--_Advertisement._
The conception of God in their minds was not _that of_ a Father, but
_as_ a dealer out of rewards and punishments.--_Daily Telegraph._
Dr. Dillon, than whom no Englishman has a profounder and more accurate
acquaintance _with_ the seamy side--as, indeed, _of_ all aspects of
Russian life--assumes....--_Times._
Sir,--_In view of_ the controversy which has arisen concerning the 12
in. Mark VIII guns in the Navy, and especially _to_ the suggestion
which might give rise to some doubt as to the efficiency of the wire
system of construction....--_Times._
We add three sentences, in the first of which double harness should not
have been used because it is too cumbrous, in the second of which it
is not correctly possible, and in the third of which the failure to use
it is very slovenly.
The odd part of it is that this childish confusion does not only not
take from our pleasure, but does not even take from our sense of the
author’s talent.--H. JAMES. (far from diminishing our pleasure, does
not....)
As to the duration of the Austro-Russian mandate, there seems _little
disposition_ here to treat the question in a hard-and-fast spirit,
_but rather_ to regard it as....--_Times._ (... spirit; it is rather
regarded as....)
To the student of the history of religious opinions in England
_few contrasts are more striking when he compares_ the assurance
and complacency with which men made profession of their beliefs
at the beginning of the nineteenth century and the diffidence and
hesitation with which the same are recited at the beginning of the
twentieth.--_Daily Telegraph._ (more striking than that between the
assurance....)
21. COMMON PARTS
When two sentences coupled by a conjunction (whether coordinating or
subordinating) have one or more parts in common, there are two ways
of avoiding the full repetition of the common parts. (_a_) ‘I see
through your villany and I detest your villany’ can become ‘I see
through and detest your villany’; ‘I have at least tried to bring
about a reconciliation, though I may have failed to bring about a
reconciliation’ can become ‘I have at least tried, though I may have
failed, to bring about, &c.’ (_b_) By substitution or ellipse, the
sentences become ‘I see through your villany, and detest it’ and ‘I
have at least tried to bring about a reconciliation, though I may have
failed (to do so)’. Of these, the (_a_) form requires careful handling:
a word that is not common to both sentences must not be treated as
common; and one that is common, and whose position declares that it
is meant to do double duty, must not be repeated. Violations of these
rules are always more or less unsightly, and are excusable only when
the precise (_a_) form is intolerably stiff and the (_b_) form not
available. In our examples below, the words placed in brackets are
the two variants, each of which, when the other is omitted, should,
with the common or unbracketed parts, form a complete sentence; the
conjunctions being of course ignored for this purpose.
What other power (could) or (ever has) produced such changes?--_Daily
Telegraph._
Things temporal (had) and (would) alter.--_Daily Telegraph._
(It had), as (all houses should), been in tune with the pleasant,
mediocre charm of the island.--E. F. BENSON.
This type will almost always admit of the emphatic repetition of the
verb: ‘could produce or ever has produced’.
Those of us who still believe in Greek as (one of the finest), if not
(the finest) instruments....--_Times._
(One of the noblest), if not (the noblest), feelings an Englishman
could possess.--_Daily Telegraph._
Use (_b_): ‘One of the finest instruments, if not the finest’.
The games were looked upon as being (quite as important) or (perhaps
more important) than drill.--_Times._
The railway has done (all) and (more) than was expected of
it.--_Spectator._
Use (_b_): ‘as important as drill, if not more so’; ‘all that was
expected of it, and more’.
All words that precede the first of two correlatives, such as ‘not ...
but’, ‘both ... and’, ‘neither ... nor’, are declared by their position
to be common; we bracket accordingly in the next examples:
The pamphlet forms (not only a valuable addition to our works on
scientific subjects), but (is also of deep interest to German
readers).--_Times._ (not only forms ..., but is ...)
Forty-five per cent of the old Rossallians ... received (either
decorations) (or were mentioned in despatches).--_Daily Telegraph._
(Either received ... or were)
The Senate, however, has (either passed) (or will pass) amendments to
every clause.--_Spectator._ (either has passed or will pass)
Cloth of gold (neither seems to elate) (nor cloth of frieze to
depress) him.--LAMB.
A curious extension, not to be mended in the active; for _neither_
cannot well precede the first of two subjects when they have different
verbs.
On the other hand, words placed between the two correlatives are
declared by their position not to be common:
Which neither (suits one purpose) (nor the other).--_Times._ (suits
neither ... nor)
Not only (against my judgment), (but my inclination).--RICHARDSON.
Not only (in the matter of malaria), (but also beriberi).--_Times._
(In the matter not of malaria only, but of ...)
22. THE WRONG TURNING
It is not very uncommon, on regaining the high road after a divergent
clause or phrase, to get confused between the two, and continue quite
wrongly the subordinate construction instead of that actually required.
I feel, however, that there never was a time when the people of this
country were more ready to believe than they are today, and would
openly believe if Christianity, with ‘doctrine’ subordinated, were
presented to them in the most convincing of all forms, viz....--_Daily
Telegraph._ (_Would believe_ is made parallel to _they are today_; it
is really parallel to _there never was a time_; and we should read
_and that they would openly believe_)
In the face of this statement either proofs should be adduced to show
that Coroner Troutbeck has stated facts ‘soberly judged’, and that
they contain ‘warrant for the accusation of wholesale’ ignorance on
the part of a trusted and eminently useful class of the community,
or failing this, that the offensive and unjust charge should be
withdrawn.--_Times._ (_The charge should be withdrawn_ is made
parallel to _Coroner Troutbeck has stated_ and _they contain_; it is
really parallel to _proofs should be adduced_; and we should omit
_that_, and read _or failing this, the offensive_....)
We cannot part from Prof. Bury’s work without expressing our unfeigned
admiration for his complete control of the original authorities on
which his narrative is based, and of the sound critical judgment he
exhibits....--_Spectator._ (The judgment is admired, not controlled)
Sometimes the confusion is not merely of the pen, but is in the
writer’s thought; and it is then almost incurable.
... the privilege by which the mind, like the lamps of a mailcoach,
moving rapidly through the midnight woods, illuminate, for one
instant, the foliage or sleeping umbrage of the thickets, and, in the
next instant, have quitted them, to carry their radiance forward upon
endless successions of objects.--DE QUINCEY.
23. ELLIPSE IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES
The missing subject and (with one exception) the missing verb of a
subordinate clause can be supplied only from the sentence to which
it is subordinate. The exception is the verb ‘to be’. We can say
‘The balls, when wet, do not bounce’, ‘When in doubt, play trumps’,
because the verb to be supplied is _are_, and the subject is that of
the principal sentence. Other violations of the rule occur, but are
scarcely tolerable even in the spoken language. The following are
undesirable instances:
For, though summer, I knew ... Mr. Rochester would like to see a
cheerful hearth.--C. BRONTË.
We can supply _was_, but not _it_; the natural subject is _I_.
I have now seen him, and though not for long, he is a man who speaks
with Bismarckian frankness.--_Times._
‘Though I did not see him for long’, we are meant to understand. But
the _though_ clause is not subordinate to the sentence containing that
subject and verb: _and_ always joins coordinates and announces the
transition from one coordinate to another. Consequently, the _though_
clause must be a part (a subordinate part) of the second coordinate,
and must draw from that its subject and verb: ‘though he is not a man
of Bismarckian frankness for long, ...’. Even if we could supply _I
saw_ with the clause in its present place, we should still have the
absurd implication that the man’s habitual frankness (not the writer’s
perception of it) depended on the duration of the interview. We offer
three conjectural emendations: ‘I have now seen him, though not for
long; and he is a man who ...’; ‘I have now seen him, and though I did
not see him for long, I perceived that he was a man who ...’; ‘I have
now seen him, and though I did not see him for long, I found out what
he thought; for he is a man who...’.
24. SOME ILLEGITIMATE INFINITIVES
_Claim_ is not followed by an infinitive except when the subject of
_claim_ is also that of the infinitive. Thus, _I claim to be honest_,
but not _I claim this to be honest_. The _Oxford Dictionary_ (1893)
does not mention the latter use even to condemn it, but it is now
becoming very common, and calls for strong protest. The corresponding
passive use is equally wrong. The same applies to _pretend_.
‘This entirely new experiment’ which you claim to have ‘solved the
problem of combining....’--_Times._
Usage, therefore, is not, as it is often claimed to be, the absolute
law of language.--R. G. WHITE.
The gun which made its first public appearance on Saturday is
claimed to be the most serviceable weapon of its kind in use in any
army.--_Times._
The constant failure to live up to what we claim to be our most
serious convictions proves that we do not hold them at all.--_Daily
Telegraph._
The anonymous and masked delators whose creation the Opposition
pretends to be an abuse of power on the part of M. Combes.--_Times._
_Possible_ and _probable_ are not to be completed by an infinitive. For
_are possible to_ read _can_; and for _probable_ read _likely_.
But no such questions are possible, as it seems to me, to arise
between your nation and ours.--CHOATE.
Should Germany meditate anything of the kind it would look uncommonly
like a deliberate provocation of France, and for that reason it seems
scarcely probable to be borne out by events.--_Times._
_Prefer_ has two constructions: I prefer this (living) _to_ that
(dying), and I prefer to do this _rather than_ that. The infinitive
construction must not be used without _rather_ (unless, of course, the
second alternative is suppressed altogether).
Other things being equal, I should prefer to marry a rich man than a
poor one.--E. F. BENSON.
The following infinitives are perhaps by false analogy from those that
might follow _forbade_, _seen_, _ask_. It may be noticed generally that
slovenly and hurried writers find the infinitive a great resource.
Marshal Oyama strictly _prohibited_ his troops _to take_ quarter
within the walls.--_Times._
The Chinese held a chou-chou, during which the devil was exorcised and
duly _witnessed_ by several believers _to take_ his flight in divers
guises.--_Times._
Third, they might _demand_ from Germany, all flushed as she was with
military pride, _to tell_ us plainly whether....--MORLEY.
25. ‘SPLIT’ INFINITIVES
The ‘split’ infinitive has taken such hold upon the consciences of
journalists that, instead of warning the novice against splitting his
infinitives, we must warn him against the curious superstition that the
splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a
bad writer. The split infinitive is an ugly thing, as will be seen from
our examples below; but it is one among several hundred ugly things,
and the novice should not allow it to occupy his mind exclusively. Even
that mysterious quality, ‘distinction’ of style, may in modest measure
be attained by a splitter of infinitives: ‘The book is written with a
distinction (save in the matter of split infinitives) unusual in such
works.’--_Times._
The time has come to once again voice the general discontent.--_Times._
It should be authorized to immediately put in hand such work.--_Times._
Important negotiations are even now proceeding to further cement trade
relations.--_Times._
We were not as yet strong enough in numbers to seriously influence the
poll.--_Times._
Keep competition with you unless you wish to once more see
a similar state of things to those prevalent prior to the
inauguration....--_Guernsey Evening Press._
And that she should force me, by the magic of her pen to mentally
acknowledge, albeit with wrath and shame, my own inferiority.--CORELLI.
The oil lamp my landlady was good enough to still allow me the use
of.--CORELLI.
The ‘persistent agitation’ ... is to so arouse public opinion on the
subject as to....--_Times._
In order to slightly extend that duration in the case of a
few.--_Times._
To thus prevent a constant accretion to the Jewish population of
Russia from this country would be nobler work....--_Times._
26. COMPOUND PASSIVES
Corresponding to the active construction ‘... have attempted to justify
this step’, we get two passive constructions: (1) ‘This step has been
attempted to be justified’, (2) ‘It has been attempted to justify this
step’. Of these (1), although licensed by usage, is an incorrect and
slovenly makeshift: ‘this step’ is not the object of ‘have attempted’,
and cannot be the subject of the corresponding passive. The true object
of ‘have attempted’ is the whole phrase ‘to justify this step’, which
in (2) rightly appears as the subject, in apposition to an introductory
‘it’.--In point of clumsiness, there is perhaps not much to choose
between the two passive constructions, neither of which should be used
when it can be avoided. When the subject of the active verb ‘have
attempted’ is definite, and can conveniently be stated, the active
form should always be retained; to write ‘it had been attempted by the
founders of the study to supply’ instead of ‘the founders had attempted
to supply’ is mere perversity. When, as in some of our examples below,
the subject of the active verb ‘have attempted’ is indefinite, the
passive turn is sometimes difficult to avoid; but unless the object
of ‘justify’ is a relative, and therefore necessarily placed at the
beginning, ‘an attempt has been made’ can often be substituted for ‘it
has been attempted’, and is less stiff and ugly.
The cutting down of ‘saying lessons’, by which it had been attempted
by the founders of the study to supply the place of speech in the
learning of Greek.--_Times._
But when it was attempted to give practical effect to the popular
exasperation, serious obstacles arose.--_Times._ (When an attempt was
made to....)
He and his friends would make the government of Ireland a sheer
impossibility, and it would be the duty of the Irish party to make it
so if it was attempted to be run on the lines of....--_Times._ (if an
attempt was made to run it on the....)
It is not however attempted to be denied.--HAZLITT. (No one attempts
to deny)
As to the audience, we imagine that a large part of it,
certainly all that part of it whose sympathies it was desired to
enlist,...--_Times._ (whose sympathies were to be enlisted)
He will see the alterations that were proposed to be made, but
rejected.--_Times._ (proposed, but rejected)
The argument by which this difficulty is sought to be evaded.--BALFOUR.
This and the following instances are not easily mended, unless we may
supply the subject of ‘seek’, &c. (‘some writers’).
The arguments by which the abolition was attempted to be supported
were founded on the rights of man.--_Times._
Some mystery in regard to her birth, which, she was well informed,
was assiduously, though vainly, endeavoured to be discovered.--FANNY
BURNEY.
The close darkness of the shut-up house (forgotten to be
opened, though it was long since day) yielded to the unexpected
glare.--DICKENS.
Those whose hours of employment are proposed to be limited.--_Times._
The insignificant duties proposed to be placed on food.--_Times._
The anti-liberal principles which it was long ago attempted to embody
in the Holy Alliance.--_Times._
Considerable support was managed to be raised for Waldemar.--CARLYLE.
We may notice here a curious blunder that is sometimes made with the
reflexive verb ‘I avail myself of’. The passive of this is never used,
because there is no occasion for it: ‘I was availed of this by myself’
would mean exactly the same as the active, and would be intolerably
clumsy. The impossible passives quoted below imply that _it_ and
_staff_ would be the direct objects of the active verb.
Watt and Fulton bethought themselves that, where was power was not
devil, but was God; that it must be availed of and not by any means
let off and wasted.--EMERSON.
_Used_ or _employed_, and so in the next:
No salvage appliances or staff could have been availed of in time to
save the lives of the men.--_Times._
27. CONFUSION WITH NEGATIVES
This is extraordinarily common. The instances are arranged in order of
obviousness.
Yezd is not only the refuge of the most ancient of Persian religions,
but it is one of the headquarters of the modern Babi propaganda,
the far-reaching effects of which it is probably difficult to
underestimate.--_Spectator._
Not a whit undeterred by the disaster which overtook them at
Cavendish-square last week ... the suffragettes again made themselves
prominent.--_Daily Mail._
So far as medicine is concerned, I am not sure that physiology,
such as it was down to the time of Harvey, might as well not have
existed.--HUXLEY.
The generality of his countrymen are far more careful not to
transgress the customs of what they call gentility, than to violate
the laws of honour or morality.--BORROW.
France and Russia are allies, as are England and Japan. Is it
impossible to imagine that, in consequence of the growing friendship
between the two great peoples on both sides of the Channel,
an agreement might not one day be realized between the four
Powers?--_Times._
I do not of course deny that in this, as in all moral principles,
there may not be found, here and there, exceptional cases which may
amuse a casuist.--L. STEPHEN.
In view of the doubts among professed theologians regarding the
genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels in whole or in part, he is
unable to say how much of the portraiture of Christ may not be due to
the idealization of His life and character.--_Daily Telegraph._
Is it quite inconceivable that if the smitten had always turned the
other cheek the smiters would not long since have become so ashamed
that their practice would have ceased?--_Daily Telegraph._
I do not think it is possible that the traditions and doctrines of
these two institutions should not fail to create rival, and perhaps
warring, schools.--_Times._
Any man--runs this terrible statute--denying the doctrine of the
Trinity or of the Divinity of Christ, or that the books of Scripture
are not the ‘Word of God’, or ..., ‘shall suffer the pain of
death’.--J. R. GREEN.
But it would not be at all surprising if, by attempting too much,
and, it must be added, by indulging too much in a style the strained
preciosity of which occasionally verges on rant and even hysteria, Mr.
Sichel has not to some extent defeated his own object.--_Spectator._
No one scarcely really believes.--_Daily Telegraph._
Let them agree to differ; for who knows but what agreeing to
differ may not be a form of agreement rather than a form of
difference?--STEVENSON.
Lastly, how can Mr. Balfour tell but that two years hence he may not
be too tired of official life to begin any new conflict?--F. GREENWOOD.
What sort of impression would it be likely to make upon the Boers?
They could hardly fail to regard it as anything but an expression of
want of confidence in our whole South-African policy.--_Times._
My friend Mr. Bounderby could never see any difference between leaving
the Coketown ‘hands’ exactly as they were and requiring them to be fed
with turtle soup and venison out of gold spoons.--DICKENS.
But it is one thing to establish these conditions [the Chinese
Ordinance], and another to remove them suddenly.--_Westminster
Gazette._
What economy of life and money would not have been spared the empire
of the Tsars had it not rendered war certain.--_Times._ (_It_ is the
empire. The instance is not quoted for _not_, though that too is
wrong, but for the confusion between loss and economy)
The question of ‘raids’ is one which necessarily comes home to every
human being living within at least thirty miles of our enormously long
coast line.--LONSDALE HALE. (An odd puzzle. _Within thirty_ means less
than thirty; _at least thirty_ means not less than thirty. The meaning
is clear enough, however, and perhaps the expression is defensible;
but it would have been better to say: within a strip at least thirty
miles broad along our enormous coast line)
The fact that a negative idea can often be either included in a word
or kept separate from it leads to a special form of confusion, the
construction proper to the resolved form being used with the compound
and _vice versa_.
My feelings, Sir, are moderately unspeakable, and that is a
fact.--American. (not moderately speakable: _moderately_ belongs only
to half of _unspeakable_)
... who did not aim, like the Presbyterians, at a change in Church
government, but rejected the notion of a national Church at all.--J.
R. GREEN. (_Reject_ is equivalent to _will not have_. I reject
altogether: I will not have at all)
And your correspondent does not seem to know, or not to realize, the
conditions of the problem.--_Times._ (_Seems_, not _does not seem_,
has to be supplied in the second clause)
I confess myself altogether unable to formulate such a principle, much
less to prove it.--_Balfour._ (_Less_ does not suit _unable_, but
_able_; but the usage of _much less_ and _much more_ is hopelessly
chaotic)
War between these two great nations would be an inexplicable
impossibility.--CHOATE. (_Inexplicable_ does not qualify the whole of
_impossibility_; to make sense we must divide _impossibility_ into
_impossible event_, and take _inexplicable_ only with _event_)
And the cry has this justification,--that no age can see itself in a
proper perspective, and is therefore incapable of giving its virtues
and vices their relative places.--_Spectator._ (_No age_ is equivalent
to _not any age_, and out of this we have to take _any age_ as subject
to the last sentence; this is a common, but untidy and blameworthy
device)
28. OMISSION OF ‘AS’
This is very common, but quite contrary to good modern usage, after the
verb _regard_, and others like it. In the first three instances the
motive of the omission is obvious, but does not justify it; all that
was necessary was to choose another verb, as _consider_, that does not
require _as_. In the later instances the omission is gratuitous.
I regard it as important as anything.
Lord Bombie had run away with Lady Bombie ‘in her sark’. This I
could not help regarding both a most improper as well as a most
uncomfortable proceeding.--CROCKETT.
So vital is this suggestion regarded.
Rare early editions of Shakespeare’s plays and poems--editions which
had long been regarded among the national heirlooms.--S. LEE.
The latter may now be expected to regard himself absolved from such
obligation as he previously felt.--_Times._
A memoir which was justly regarded of so much merit and importance
that....--HUXLEY.
... what might be classed a ‘horizontal’ European triplice.--_Times._
You would look upon yourself amply revenged if you knew what they have
cost me.--RICHARDSON.
He also alluded to the bayonet, and observed that its main use
was no longer a defence against cavalry, but it was for the final
charge.--_Times._
... I was rewarded with such a conception of the God-like majesty and
infinite divinity which everywhere loomed up behind and shone through
the humanity of the Son of Man that no false teaching or any power on
earth or in hell itself will ever shake my firm faith in the combined
divinity and humanity in the person of the Son of God, and _as sure
am I_ that I eat and drink and live to-day, so certain am I that this
mysterious Divine Redeemer is in living....--_Daily Telegraph._
The last example is of a different kind. Read _as sure as I am_ for _as
sure am I_ as the least possible correction. Unpractised writers should
beware of correlative clauses except in their very simplest forms.
29. OTHER LIBERTIES TAKEN WITH ‘AS’
_As_ must not be expected to do by itself the work of _such as_.
There were not two dragon sentries keeping ward before the gate of
this abode, _as_ in magic legend are usually found on duty over the
wronged innocence imprisoned.--DICKENS.
The specialist is naturally best for his particular job; but if the
particular specialist required is not on the spot, as must often
be the case, the best substitute for him is not another specialist
but the man trained to act for himself in all circumstances, _as_
it has been the glory of our nation to produce both in the Army and
elsewhere.--_Times._
We question if throughout the French Revolution there was a single
case of six or seven thousand insurgents blasted away by cannon
shot, _as_ is believed to have happened in Odessa.--_Spectator._
(This is much more defensible than the previous two; but when a
definite noun--as here _case_--can be naturally supplied for the verb
introduced by _as_, _such as_ is better).
The decision of the French Government to send a special mission to
represent France at the marriage of the German Crown Prince is not
intended as anything more than a mere act of international courtesy,
_as_ is customary on such occasions.--_Times._
Neither _as_ nor _such as_ should be made to do the work of the
relative pronoun where there would be no awkwardness in using the
pronoun itself.
With a speed of eight knots, _as_ [which] has been found practicable
in the case of the Suez Canal, the passage would occupy five
days.--_Times._
The West Indian atmosphere is not of the limpid brightness and
transparent purity _such as_ [that] are found in the sketch entitled
‘A Street in Kingston’.--_Times._
The ideal statues and groups in this room and the next are scarcely so
interesting as we have sometimes seen.--_Times._ (_As_ is clearly here
a relative adverb, answering to _so_; nevertheless the construction
can be theoretically justified, the full form being _as we have
sometimes seen groups interesting_. But it is very ugly; why not say
instead _as some that we have seen_?)
The idiom _as who should say_ must not be used unless the sentence
to which it is appended has for subject a person to whom the person
implied in _who_ is compared. This seems reasonable, and is borne out,
for instance, by all the Shakespeare passages--a dozen--that we have
looked at. The type is: The cloudy messenger turns me his back, and
hums, as who should say:--&c.
To think of the campaign without the scene is as who should read a
play by candle-light among the ghosts of an empty theatre.--MORLEY.
30. BRACHYLOGY
1. Omission of a dependent noun in the second of two parallel series:
‘The brim of my hat is wider than yours’. For this there is some
justification: an ugly string of words is avoided, and the missing word
is easily supplied from the first series; it has usually the effect,
however, of attaching a preposition to the wrong noun:
I should be proud to lay an obligation upon my charmer to the amount
of half, nay, to the whole of my estate.--RICHARDSON.
There is as much of the pure gospel in their teachings as in any other
community of Christians in our land.
There cannot be the same reason for a prohibition of correspondence
with me, as there was of mine with Mr. Lovelace.--RICHARDSON.
Here the right preposition is retained.
A man holding such a responsible position as Minister of the United
States.--D. SLADEN.
2. A preposition is sometimes left out, quite unwarrantably, from a
mistaken idea of euphony:
Without troubling myself as to what such self-absorption might lead in
the future.--CORELLI. (lead to)
He chose to fancy that she was not suspicious of what all his
acquaintance were perfectly aware--namely, that....--THACKERAY. (aware
of)
3. Impossible compromises between two possible alternatives.
To be a Christian means to us one who has been regenerated.--_Daily
Telegraph._ (‘A Christian means one who has’: ‘to be a Christian means
to have been’)
To do what as far as human possibility has proved out of his
power.--_Daily Telegraph._ (‘As a matter of human possibility’: ‘as
far as human possibility goes’)
One compromise of this kind has come to be generally recognized:
So far from being annoyed, he agreed at once. (‘So far was he from
being annoyed that ...’: ‘far from being annoyed, he agreed’)
31. BETWEEN TWO STOOLS
The commonest form of indecision is that between statement and
question. But the examples of this are followed by a few miscellaneous
ones.
May I ask _that_ if care should be taken of remains of buildings a
thousand years old, _ought not_ care to be taken of ancient British
earth-works several thousand years old?--_Times._
Can I not make you understand that you are ruining yourself and me,
and _that_ if you don’t get reconciled to your father _what is_ to
become of you?--S. FERRIER.
We will only say _that_ if it was undesirable for a private member to
induce the Commons to pass a vote against Colonial Preference, _why
was it_ not undesirable for a private member....--_Spectator._
_Surely_, then, if I am not claiming too much for our efforts at that
time to maintain the Union, _am I_ exaggerating our present ability
to render him effectual aid in the contest that will be fought at the
next election if I say that prudence alone should dictate to him the
necessity for doing everything in his power to revive the spirit which
the policy of Sir Antony MacDonnell, Lord Dudley, and Mr. Wyndham has
done so much to weaken?--_Times._
I then further observed _that_ China having observed the laws of
neutrality, _how could he_ believe in the possibility of an alliance
with Russia?--_Times._
The next two use both the relative and the participle construction,
instead of choosing between them.
Thus it befell that our high and low labour vote, _which_ (if one
might say so in the hearing of M. Jaurès and Herr Bebel) _being_
vertical rather than horizontal, and quite unhindered in the United
States, of course by an overwhelming majority elected President
Roosevelt.--_Times._
He replied to Mr. Chamberlain’s Limehouse speech, the only part of
_which_ that he could endorse _being_, he said, the suggestion that
the electorate should go to the root of the question at the next
general election.--_Times._
Who, in Europe, at least, would _forego_ the delights of
kissing,--(which the Japanese by-the-by consider a disgusting
habit),--_without_ embraces,--and all those other endearments which
are supposed to dignify the progress of true love!--CORELLI.
Poor, bamboozled, patient public!--no wonder it is beginning to think
_that_ a halfpenny spent on a newspaper which is purchased to be
thrown away, _enough_ and more than enough.--CORELLI.
But hurriedly dismissing _whatever_ shadow of earnestness, or
faint confession of a purpose, laudable or wicked, _that_ her
face, or voice, or manner, had, for the moment betrayed, she
lounged....--DICKENS.
_At_ the Épée Team Competition for Dr. Savage’s Challenge Cup, held on
the 25th and 27th February last, _was won_ by the Inns of Court team,
consisting of....--_14th Middlesex Battalion Orders._
32. THE IMPERSONAL ‘ONE’
This should never be mixed up with other pronouns. Its possessive is
_one’s_, not _his_, and _one_ should be repeated, if necessary, not
be replaced by _him_, &c. Those who doubt their ability to handle
it skilfully under these restrictions should only use it where no
repetition or substitute is needed. The older experimental usage,
which has now been practically decided against, is shown in the Lowell
examples.
That inequality and incongruousness in his writing which makes _one_
revise _his_ judgment at every tenth page.--LOWELL.
As one grows older, _one_ loses many idols, perhaps comes at last
to have none at all, although _he_ may honestly enough uncover in
deference to the worshippers at any shrine.--LOWELL.
There are many passages which _one_ is rather inclined to like than
sure _he_ would be right in liking.--LOWELL.
He is a man who speaks with Bismarckian frankness, and who directly
impresses _one_ with the impression that _you_ are speaking to a man
and not to an incarnate bluebook.--_Times._
The merit of the book, and it is not a small one, is that it discusses
every problem with fairness, with no perilous hankering after
originality, and with a disposition to avail _oneself_ of what has
been done by _his_ predecessors.--_Times._
If _one_ has an opinion on any subject, it is of little use to read
books or papers which tell _you_ what you know already.--_Times._
... are all creations which make _one_ laugh inwardly as _we_
read.--HUTTON.
_One’s_, on the other hand, is not the right possessive for the generic
_man_; _man’s_ or _his_ is required according to circumstances; _his_
in the following example:
There is a natural desire in the mind of _man_ to sit for _one’s_
picture.--HAZLITT.
33. BETWEEN ... OR
This is a confusion between two ways of giving alternatives--_between
... and_, and _either ... or_. It is always wrong.
The choice Russia has is between payment for damages in money _or_ in
kind.--_Times._
Forced to choose between the sacrifice of important interests on the
one hand _or_ the expansion of the Estimates on the other.--_Times._
We have in that substance the link between organic _or_ inorganic
matter which abolishes the distinction between living _and_ dead
matter.--_Westminster Gazette._ (Observe the ‘elegant variation’)
The question lies between a God and a creed, _or_ a God in such an
abstract sense that does not signify.--_Daily Telegraph._
The author of the last has been perplexed by the _and_ in one of his
alternatives. _He_ should have used _on the one hand_, &c.
34. ‘A’ PLACED BETWEEN THE ADJECTIVE AND ITS NOUN
This is ugly when not necessary. Types of phrase in which it is
necessary are: Many a youth; What a lie! How dreadful _a_ fate! So lame
an excuse. But there is no difficulty in placing a before ordinary
qualifications of the adjective like _quite_, _more_, _much less_. In
the following, read _quite a sufficient_, _a more valuable_, _a more
glorious_, _a more serviceable_, _no different position_, _a_ greater
_or less degree_.
... adding that there was no suggestion of another raid against the
Japanese flank, which was _quite sufficient an indication_ of coming
events for those capable of reading between the lines.--_Times._
Can any one choose _more glorious an exit_ than to die fighting for
one’s own country?--_Times._
Of sympathy, of ... Mr. Baring has a full measure, which, in his
case, is _more valuable an asset_ than familiarity with military
textbooks.--_Times._
No great additional expenditure is required in order to make Oxford
_more serviceable a part_ of our educational system.--_Westminster
Gazette._
And young undergraduates are in this respect in no different a
position from that of any other Civil Servant.--_Westminster Gazette._
The thousand and one adjuncts to devotion finding place _in more or
less a degree_ in all churches, are all....--_Daily Telegraph._
The odd arrangement in the following will not do; we should have _a_
either before _so_ or before _degree_.
But what I do venture to protest against is the sacrificing of the
interests of the country districts in _so ridiculously an unfair
degree_ to those of a small borough.--_Times._
35. _DO_ AS SUBSTITUTE VERB
_Do_ cannot represent (1) _be_, (2) an active verb supplied from a
passive, (3) an active verb in a compound tense, gerund, or infinitive;
You made the very mistake that I _did_, but _have made_, _was afraid of
making_, _expected to make_, _shall_ (_make_).
It ... ought to have been satisfying to the young man. And so, in a
manner of speaking, it did.--CROCKETT.
It may justly be said, as Mr. Paul does, that....--_Westminster
Gazette._
To inflict upon themselves a disability which one day they will find
the mistake and folly of doing.--_Westminster Gazette._
We can of course say He lost his train, which I had warned him not to
_do_; because _lose_ is then represented not by _do_, but by _which_
(thing).
36. FRESH STARTS
The trick of taking breath in the middle of a sentence by means of a
resumptive _that_ or the like should be avoided; especially when it
is a confession rather of the writer’s short-windedness than of the
unwieldy length of his sentence.
It does not follow (as I pointed out by implication above) that if,
according to the account of their origin given by the system, those
fundamental beliefs are true, that therefore they are true.--BALFOUR.
Sir--Might I suggest that while this interesting question is being
discussed that the hymn ‘Rock of Ages’ be sung in every church and
chapel...?--_Daily Telegraph._
A very short-winded correspondent.
It seems to be a fair deduction that when the Japanese gained their
flank position immediately West of Mukden, and when, further, they
took no immediate advantage of the fact, but, on the contrary, began
to hold the villages in the plain as defensive positions, that a much
more ambitious plan was in operation.--_Times._
If the writer means what he says, and the grounds of the deduction are
not included in the sentence, reconstruction is not obvious, and _that_
is perhaps wanted to pick up the thread; but if, as may be suspected,
the _when_ clauses contain the grounds of the deduction, we may
reconstruct as follows: ‘When the Japanese ..., and when ..., it was
natural to infer that ...’.
37. VULGARISMS AND COLLOQUIALISMS
_Like_ for _as_:
Sins that were degrading me, like they have many others.--_Daily
Telegraph._
They should not make a mad, reckless, frontal attack like General
Buller made at the battle of Colenso.--_Daily Telegraph._
Coming to God the loving Father for pardon, like the poor prodigal
did.--_Daily Telegraph._
There is no moral force in existence ... which enlarges our outlook
like suffering does.--_Daily Telegraph._
_What ever ...?_ is a colloquialism; _whatever ...?_ a vulgarism:
Whatever reason have we to suppose, as the vast majority of professing
Christians appear to do, that the public worship of Almighty God
...?--_Daily Telegraph._
Whatever is the good in wrangling about bones when one is hungry and
has nutritious food at hand?--_Daily Telegraph._
‘Those sort’:
I know many of those sort of girls whom you call conjurors.--TROLLOPE.
Those sort of writers would merely take it as a first-class
advertisement.--CORELLI.
38. TAUTOLOGY
Lord Rosebery has not budged from his position--splendid, no doubt--of
(lonely) isolation.--_Times._
Counsel admitted that that was a grave suggestion to make,
but he submitted that it was borne out by the (surrounding)
circumstances.--_Times._
One can feel first the characteristics which men have in common
and only afterward those which distinguish them (apart) from one
another.--_Times._
A final friendly agreement with Japan, which would be very welcome
to Russia, is only possible if Japan (again) regains her liberty of
action.--_Times._
Miss Tox was (often) in the habit of assuring Mrs. Chick that
...--DICKENS.
He had come up one morning, as was now (frequently) his
wont.--TROLLOPE.
The counsellors of the Sultan (continue to) remain
sceptical.--_Times._
The Peresviet lost both her fighting-tops and (in appearance) looked
the most damaged of all the ships.--_Times._
They would, however, strengthen their position if they returned
the (temporary) loan of Sir A. MacDonnell to his owners with
thanks.--_Times._
The score was taken to 136 when Mr. MacLaren, who had (evidently)
seemed bent on hitting Mr. Armstrong off, was bowled.--_Times._
... cannot prevent the diplomacy of the two countries from lending
each other (mutual) support.--_Times._
However, I judged that they would soon (mutually) find each other
out.--CROCKETT.
Notwithstanding which, (however,) poor Polly embraced them all
round.--DICKENS.
If any real remedy is to be found, we must first diagnose the true
nature of the disease; (but) that, however, is not hard.--_Times._
M. Delcassé contemplated an identical answer for France, Great
Britain, and Spain, refusing, of course, the proposed conference, but
his colleagues of the Cabinet were (, however,) opposed to identical
replies.--_Times._
The strong currents frequently shifted the mines, to the equal danger
(both) of friend and foe.--_Times._
And persecution on the part of the Bishops and the Presbyterians, to
(both of) whom their opinions were equally hateful, drove flocks of
refugees over sea.--J. R. GREEN.
But to the ordinary English Protestant (both) Latitudinarian and High
Churchmen were equally hateful.--J. R. GREEN.
Seriously, (and apart from jesting,) this is no light matter.--BAGEHOT.
To go back to your own country ... with (the consciousness that you go
back with) the sense of duty done.--LORD HALSBURY.
No doubt my efforts were clumsy enough, but Togo had a capacity for
taking pains, by which (said) quality genius is apt to triumph over
early obstacles.--_Times._
... as having created a (joint) partnership between the two Powers in
the Morocco question.--_Times._
Sir--As a working man it appears to me that to the question ‘Do we
believe?’ the only sensible position (there seems to be) is to frankly
acknowledge our ignorance of what lies beyond.--_Daily Telegraph._
39. REDUNDANCIES
Dr. Redmond told his constituents that _by_ reducing the National
vote in the House of Commons they would not _thereby_ get rid of
obstruction.--_Times._
It is not a thousand years _ago since_ municipalities in Scotland were
by no means free from the suspicion of corruption.--LORD ROSEBERY.
Some substance equally _as_ yielding.--_Daily Mail._
Had another expedition reached the Solomon Islands, who knows _but_
that the Spaniards might _not_ have gone on to colonize Australia and
so turned the current of history?--_Spectator._
As one _being_ able to give full consent ... I am yours
faithfully....--_Daily Telegraph._
But _to_ where shall I look for some small ray of light that will
illumine the darkness surrounding the mystery of my being?--_Daily
Telegraph._
It is quite _possible_ that if they do that it _may_ be _possible_ to
amend it in certain particulars.--_Westminster Gazette._
Men and women who _professed to call_ themselves Christians.--_Daily
Telegraph._ (An echo, no doubt, of ‘profess and call themselves
Christians’)
The correspondence that you have published _abundantly_ throws out
into _bold_ relief the false position assumed....--_Daily Telegraph._
In the course of the _day_, _yesterday_, M. Rouvier was able to assure
M. Delcassé....--_Times._
_Moreover_, _too_, do we not all feel...?--J. C. COLLINS.
The doing nothing for a length of days after the first shock he
sustained was _the reason of how it came that_ Nesta knitted closer
her acquaintance....--MEREDITH.
When the public adopt new inventions wholesale, ... _some obligation
is due_ to lessen, so far as is possible, the hardships in
which....--_Westminster Gazette._
40. ‘AS TO WHETHER’
This is a form that is seldom necessary, and should be reserved for
sentences in which it is really difficult to find a substitute.
Abstract nouns that cannot be followed immediately by _whether_ should
if possible be replaced by the corresponding verbs. Many writers seem
to delight in this hideous combination, and employ it not only with
abstracts that can be followed by _whether_, but even with verbs.
The Court declined to express any opinion _as to_ whether the Russian
Ambassador was justified in giving the assurances in question and _as
to_ whether the offences with which the accused were charged were
punishable by German law.--_Times._ (Perhaps ‘declined to say whether
in their opinion’; but this is less easily mended than most)
The difficulties of this task were so great that I was in doubt _as
to_ whether it was possible.--_Times._
His whole interest is concentrated on the question _as to_ how his
mission will affect his own fortunes.--_Times._
A final decision has not yet been arrived at _as to_ whether or not
the proceedings shall be public.--_Times._ (It has not yet been
finally decided whether)
You raise the question _as to_ whether Admiral Rozhdestvensky will not
return.--_Times._
I have much pleasure in informing Rear Admiral Mather Byles _as to_
where he could inspect a rifle of the type referred to.
The interesting question which such experiments tend to suggest is as
to how far science may....--_Outlook._
When we come to consider the question _as to_ whether, upon the
dissolution of the body, the spirit flies to some far-distant
celestial realm....--_Daily Telegraph._
He never told us to judge by the lives of professing Christians _as
to_ whether Christianity is true.--_Daily Telegraph._
M. Delcassé did not allude to the debated question _as to_ whether
any official communication ... was made by the French Government to
Germany. It is also pointed out that he did not let fall the slightest
intimation _as to_ whether the French Government expected....--_Times._
41. SUPERFLUOUS ‘BUT’ AND ‘THOUGH’
Where there is a natural opposition between two sentences, adversative
conjunctions may yet be made impossible by something in one of the
sentences that does the work unaided. Thus if _in vain_, _only_, and
_reserves_ and _sole_, had not been used in the following sentences,
_but_ and _though_ would have been right; as it is, they are wrong.
(The author dreams that he is a horse being ridden) _In vain_ did I
rear and kick, attempting to get rid of my foe; _but_ the surgeon
remained as saddle-fast as ever.--BORROW.
But the substance of the story is probably true, _though_ Voltaire has
_only_ made a slip in a name.--MORLEY.
Germany, it appears, _reserves_ for herself the _sole_ privilege
of creating triple alliances and ‘purely defensive’ combinations
of that character, _but_ when the interests of other Powers
bring them together their action is reprobated as aggressive and
menacing.--_Times._
Such mistakes probably result from altering the plan of a sentence in
writing; and the cure is simply to read over every sentence after it is
written.
42. ‘IF AND WHEN’
This formula has enjoyed more popularity than it deserves; either
‘when’ or ‘if’ by itself would almost always give the meaning. Even
where ‘if’ seems required to qualify ‘when’ (which by itself might
be taken to exclude the possibility of the event’s never happening
at all), ‘if’ and ‘when’ are clearly not coordinate, though both are
subordinate to the main sentence: ‘if and when he comes, I will write’
means ‘if he comes, I will write when he comes’, or ‘when he comes
(if he comes at all), I will write’, and the ‘if’ clause, whether
parenthetic or not, is subordinate to the whole sentence ‘I will write
when he comes’. Our Gladstone instance below differs from the rest:
‘when’ with a past tense, unqualified by ‘if’, would make an admission
that the writer does not choose to make; on the other hand, the time
reference given by ‘when’ is essential; ‘on the occasion on which it
was done (if it really was done) it was done judicially’. The faulty
coordination may be overlooked where there is real occasion for its
use; but many writers seem to have persuaded themselves that neither
‘if’ nor ‘when’ is any longer capable of facing its responsibilities
without the other word to keep it in countenance.
No doubt it will accept the experimental proof here alleged, if and
when it is repeated under conditions....--_Times._
The latter will include twelve army corps, six rifle brigades, and
nine divisions or brigades of mounted troops, units which, if and when
complete, will more than provide....--_Times._
Unless and until we pound hardest we shall never beat the
Boers.--_Spectator._
It is only if, and when, our respective possessions become
conterminous with those of great military states on land that we
each....--_Times._
If and when it was done, it was done so to speak
judicially.--GLADSTONE.
No prudent seaman would undertake an invasion unless or until he had
first disposed of the force preparing ... to impeach him.--_Times._
Its leaders decline to take office unless and until the 90 or 100
German words of command used ... are replaced....--_Times._
If and when employment is abundant....--_Westminster Gazette._
It means nothing less, if Mr. Chamberlain has his way, than the final
committal of one of the two great parties to a return to Protection,
if and when it has the opportunity.--_Westminster Gazette._
It is clear, however, that the work will gain much if and when she
plays faster.--_Westminster Gazette._
43. MALTREATED IDIOMS
1. Two existing idioms are fused into a non-existent one.
It did not take him much trouble.--SLADEN. (I take: it costs me)
An opportunity should be afforded the enemy of retiring northwards,
more or less _of_ their own _account_.--_Times._ (of my own accord: on
my own account)
Dr. Kuyper admitted that his opinion had been consulted.--_Times._ (I
consult you: take your opinion)
But it was in vain with the majority to attempt it.--BAGEHOT. (I
attempt in vain: it is vain to attempt)
The captain got out the shutter of the door, shut it up, made it all
fast, and locked the door itself.--DICKENS. (make it fast: make all
fast)
The provisioning of the Russian Army would practically have to be
drawn exclusively from the mother country.--_Times._ (draw provisions:
do provisioning)
It gives me the greatest pleasure in adding my testimony.--_Daily
Telegraph._ (I have pleasure in adding: it gives me pleasure to add)
And if we rejected a similar proposition made to us, was it
not too much to expect that Canada might not turn in another
direction?--CHAMBERLAIN (reported). (Might not Canada turn?... to
expect that Canada would not turn)
I can speak from experience that ... ‘conversion’ ... was a very real
and powerful thing.--_Daily Telegraph._ (speak to conversion’s being:
say that conversion was)
He certainly possessed, though in no great degree, the means of
affording them more relief than he practised.--SCOTT. (preached more
than he practised: had means of affording more than he did afford)
My position is one of a clerk, thirty-eight years of age, and
married.--_Daily Telegraph._ (one that no one would envy: that of a
clerk)
Abbot, indeed, had put the finishing stroke on all attempts at a
higher ceremonial. Neither he nor his household would bow at the name
of Christ.--J. R. GREEN. (put the finishing touches on: given the
finishing stroke to)
In this chapter some of these words will be considered, and also some
others against which purism has raised objections which do not seem
to be well taken.--R. G. WHITE. (exceptions well taken: objections
rightly made. _To take an objection well_ can only mean to keep your
temper when it is raised)
A woman would instinctively draw her cloak or dress closer to her, and
a man leave by far an unnecessary amount of room for fear of coming
into contact with those to whom....--_Daily Telegraph._ (by far too
great: quite an unnecessary)
The fines inflicted for excess of the legal speed.--_Times._ (excess
of speed: exceeding the legal speed)
Notwithstanding the no inconsiderable distance by sea.--_Guernsey
Advertiser._ (it is no inconsiderable distance: the--or a--not
inconsiderable distance)
His whim had been gratified at a trifling cost of ten thousand
pounds.--CRAWFORD. (a trifling cost--unspecified: a trifle of ten
thousand _or so_: the trifling cost of ten thousand. So in the next)
Dying at a ripe old age of eighty-three.--_Westminster Gazette._
That question is the present solvency or insolvency of the Russian
State. The answer to it depends not upon the fact whether Russia has
or has not....--_Times._ (the fact that: the question whether. But
_depends not upon whether_ would be best here)
To all those who had thus so self-sacrificingly and energetically
promoted the organization of this fund he desired to accord in the
name of the diocese their deep obligation.--_Guernsey Advertiser._
(accord thanks: acknowledge obligation)
The allies frittered away in sieges the force which was ready for an
advance into the heart of France until the revolt of the West and
South was alike drowned in blood.--_Times._ (the revolts were alike
drowned: the revolt was drowned)
2. Of two distinct idioms the wrong is chosen.
When, too, it was my pleasure to address a public meeting of more than
2,000 at the Royal Theatre the organized opposition numbered less than
seven score.--_Times._
It is our pleasure to present to you the enclosed notification of the
proportion of profits which has been placed to the credit of your
account.--Company circular. (I had, we have, the pleasure of--. The
form chosen is proper to royal personages expressing their gracious
will)
In the face of it the rule appears a most advisable one.--_Guernsey
Advertiser._ (_On the face of it_ means prima facie: the other means
in spite of)
3. The form of an idiom is distorted, without confusion with another.
However, towards evening the wind and the waves subsided and the night
became quiet and starlight.--_Times._ (_Starlight_ is a noun, which
can be used as an adjective immediately before another noun only; a
starlight night)
Russia is now bitterly expiating her share in the infamy then visited
upon Japan.--_Times._ (We visit upon a person his sins, or something
for which he is responsible, and not we; or again, we may visit our
indignation upon him)
He anticipated much towards Mary’s recovery in her return to
Japan.--SLADEN. (anticipate ... from)
But both Governments have now requested Washington to be chosen as the
place of meeting.--_Times._ (requested that Washington should)
For as its author in later years told the writer of this article,
he had studied war for nine years before he put the pen to the
paper.--_Times._ (Put pen to paper. This looks like imitation French;
it is certainly not English)
4. The meaning of an idiom is mistaken without confusion with another.
For days and days, in such moods, he would stay within his cottage,
never darkening the door or seeing other face than his own
inmates.--TROLLOPE. (To darken the door is always to enter as a
visitor, never to go out)
5. Some miscellaneous and unclassified violations are added, mostly
without further comment than italics, to remind sanguine learners that
there are small pitfalls in every direction.
If I _did not have_ the most thorough dependence on your good sense
and high principles, I should not speak to you in this way.--TROLLOPE.
Japan, while desiring the massacre of her own and Russia’s subjects to
be brought to an end, _has_ nevertheless _every interest that_ the war
should go on.--_Times._
The unpublished state, of which only _an extremely few_ examples are
in existence.--_Times._
Once I _jested her_ about it.--CROCKETT.
It is _significant to add_ that when Mrs. Chesnut died in 1886 her
servants were with her.--_Times._
Herring boats, the drapery of whose black suspended nets _contrasted_
with picturesque effect _the white sails_ of the larger vessels.--S.
FERRIER.
It is at least incumbent to be scrupulously accurate.--_Times._
(The metaphor in _incumbent_ is so much alive that _upon_--is never
dispensed with)
A measure _according Roman Catholic clergymen_ who have passed through
the local seminaries but have not yet passed the prescribed Russian
language test _to hold_ clerical appointments.--_Times._
There will be established in this free England a commercial tyranny
_the like of which_ will not be inferior to the tyrannical Inquisition
of the Dark Ages.--_Spectator._
44. TRUISMS AND CONTRADICTIONS IN TERMS
A contradiction in terms is often little more than a truism turned
inside out; we shall therefore group the two together, and with them
certain other illogical expressions, due to a similar confusion of
thought.
Praise which perhaps was scarcely meant to be taken _too_
literally.--BAGEHOT.
Where no standard of literalness is mentioned, _too literally_ is ‘more
literally than was meant’. We may safely affirm, without the cautious
reservations _perhaps_ and _scarcely_, that the praise was not meant to
be taken more literally than it was meant to be taken. Omit _too_.
He found what was _almost quite_ as interesting.--_Times._
If it was almost as interesting, we do not want _quite_: if quite, we
do not want _almost_.
Splendid and elegant, but _somewhat bordering on_ the antique
fashion.--SCOTT.
_Bordering on_ means not ‘like’ but ‘very like’; ‘somewhat very like’.
A _very unique_ child, thought I.--C. BRONTË.
A _somewhat unique_ gathering of our great profession.--HALSBURY.
There are no degrees in uniqueness.
Steady, respectable labouring men--_one and all, with rare
exceptions_, married.--_Times._ (all without exception, with rare
exceptions)
To _name_ only a _few_, _take_ Lord Rosebery, Lord Rendel, Lord ...,
..., ..., and _many_ others.--_Times._
_Take_ in this context means ‘consider as instances’; we cannot
consider them as instances unless we have their names; _take_ must
therefore mean ‘let me name for your consideration’. Thus we get: ‘To
_name_ only a _few_, let me _name_ ... and _many_ others (whom I do
_not_ name)’.
More _led away_ by a jingling antithesis of words than _an accurate
perception_ of ideas.--H. D. MACLEOD.
‘Guided by an accurate perception’ is what is meant. To be ‘led
away by accurate perception’ is a misfortune that could happen only
in a special sense, the sense in which it has happened, possibly, to
the writer, whom sheer force of accurate perception may have hurried
into inaccurate expression; but more probably he too is the victim of
‘jingling antithesis’.
_Long before_ the appointed hour for the commencement of the
recital, standing room only fell to the lot of those who arrived
_just previous_ to Mr. K.’s appearance on the platform.--_Guernsey
Advertiser._
The necessary inference--that Mr. K., the reciter, appeared on the
platform long before the appointed hour--is probably not in accordance
with the facts.
The weather this week has for the most part been of that quality which
the month of March so _strikingly_ characterizes in the _ordinary_
course of events.--_Guernsey Advertiser._
What happens in the ordinary course of events can scarcely continue
to be striking. Whether the month characterizes the weather, or the
weather the month, we need not consider here.
He _forgot_ that it was possible, that from a brief period of
tumultuous disorder, there might issue a military despotism more
compact, more disciplined, and more overpowering than any which had
preceded it, or any which _has_ followed it.--BAGEHOT.
_He_ could not forget, because he could not know, anything about the
despotisms which _have_ in fact followed. He might know and forget
something about all the despotisms that had preceded or _should_ follow
(in direct speech, ‘that have preceded or shall follow’): ‘this may
result in the most compact despotism in all history, past and future’.
But probably Bagehot does not even mean this: the last clause seems to
contain a reflection of his own, falsely presented as a part of what
_he_ ought to have reflected.
Some people would say that my present manner of travelling is much
the _most preferable_, riding as I do now, instead of leading my
horse.--BORROW.
Only two modes of travelling are compared: _the most preferable_
implies four, three of them preferable in different degrees to the
fourth. A not uncommon vulgarism.
45. DOUBLE EMPHASIS
Attempts at packing double emphasis into a single sentence are apt to
result in real weakening.
No government ever plunged _more_ rapidly into a _deeper_
quagmire.--_Outlook._ (From the writer’s evident wish to state the
matter strongly, we infer that several Governments have plunged more
rapidly into as deep quagmires, and as rapidly into deeper ones)
Mr. Justice Neville ... will now have the very rare experience of
joining on the Bench a colleague whom he defeated on the polls _just
fourteen years ago_.--_Westminster Gazette._ (The _experience_,
with exact time-interval, is probably unique, like any individual
thumb-print; that does not make the _coincidence_ more remarkable; and
it is the coincidence that we are to admire)
Nothing has brought out more strongly than motor-driving the
over-bearing, selfish nature of too many motor-drivers and their utter
want of consideration for their fellow men.--LORD WEMYSS. (The attempt
to kill drivers and driving with one stone leaves both very slightly
wounded. For what should show up the drivers more than the driving?
and whom should the driving show up more than the drivers?)
The commonest form of this is due to conscientious but mistaken zeal
for correctness, which prefers, for instance, _without oppressing or
without plundering_ to _without oppressing or plundering_. The first
form excludes only one of the offences, and is therefore, though
probably meant to be twice as emphatic, actually much weaker than the
second, which excludes both. With _and_ instead of _or_, it is another
matter.
Actual experience has shown that a gun constructed on the wire
system can still be utilized effectively without the destruction of
the weapon or without dangerous effects, even with its inner tube
split.--_Times._
The Union must be maintained without pandering to such prejudices on
the one hand, _or without_ giving way on the other to the ... schemes
of the Nationalists.--_Spectator._
He inhibited him, on pain of excommunication, from seeking a divorce
in his own English Courts, _or from_ contracting a new marriage.--J.
R. GREEN. (Half excused by the negative sense of _inhibit_)
46. ‘SPLIT’ AUXILIARIES.
Some writers, holding that there is the same objection to split
compound verbs as to split infinitives, prefer to place any adverb or
qualifying phrase not between the auxiliary and the other component,
but before both. Provided that the adverb is then separated from the
auxiliary, no harm is done: ‘Evidently he was mistaken’ is often as
good as ‘He was evidently mistaken’, and suits all requirements of
accentuation. But the placing of the adverb immediately before or
after the auxiliary depends, according to established usage, upon
the relative importance of the two components. When the main accent
is to fall upon the second component, the normal place of the adverb
is between the two; it is only when the same verb is repeated with a
change in the tense or mood of the auxiliary, that the adverb should
come first. ‘He evidently was deceived’ implies, or should imply, that
the verb _deceived_ has been used before, and that the point of the
sentence depends upon the emphatic auxiliary; accordingly we should
write ‘The possibility of his being deceived had never occurred to
me; but he evidently was deceived’, but ‘I relied implicitly on his
knowledge of the facts; but he was evidently deceived’. In our first
two examples below the adverb is rightly placed first to secure the
emphasis on the auxiliary: in all the others the above principle of
accentuation is violated. The same order of words is required by the
copula with whatever kind of complement.
I recognize this truth, and always have recognized it.
Refined policy ever has been the parent of confusion, and ever will be
so, as long as the world endures.--BURKE.
They never are suffered to succeed in their opposition.--BURKE.
She had received the homage of ... and occasionally had deigned to
breathe forth....--BEACONSFIELD.
He ordered breakfast as calmly as if he never had left his
home.--BEACONSFIELD.
Miss Becky, whose sympathetic powers never had been called into action
before.--FERRIER.
They now were bent on taking the work into their own hands.--MORLEY.
There may have been a time when a king was a god, but he now is pretty
much on a level with his subjects.--JOWETT.
They both are contradicted by all positive evidence.--W. H. MALLOCK.
Religious art at once complete and sincere never yet has
existed.--RUSKIN.
Not mere empty ideas, but what were once realities, and that I long
have thought decayed.--C. BRONTË.
So that he might assist at a Bible class, from which he never had been
absent.--BEACONSFIELD.
If we would write an essay, we necessarily must have something to
say.--BYGOTT & JONES.
The protectionists lately have been affirming that the autumn session
will be devoted to railway questions.--_Times._
Visitors no longer can drive in open carriages along the
littoral.--_Times._
It still is the fact that his mind ... was essentially the mind of a
poet.--_Times._
To whom in any case its style would have not appealed.--_Times._
To go wrong with _not_ is an achievement possible only with triple
compounds, where the principal division is of course between the finite
(_would_) and the infinitive with participle (_have appealed_). ‘Would
not have appealed’ must be written, though at an enormous sacrifice of
‘distinction’.
This enhanced value of old English silver may be due partly to the
increase in the number of collectors; but it also has been largely
influenced by the publication....--_Times._
Mr. Fry showed to a very great extent his power of defence.... To-day,
if runs are to be of importance, he very likely will show his powers
of hitting.--_Times._
47. OVERLOADING
A single sentence is sometimes made to carry a double burden:
So unique a man as Sir George Lewis has, in truth, rarely been lost to
this country.--BAGEHOT.
The meaning is not ‘Men like Sir G. Lewis have seldom been lost’, but
‘Men like the late Sir G. Lewis have seldom been found’. But instead
of _the late_ a word was required that should express proper concern;
_lost_ is a short cut to ‘men so unique as he whose loss we now
deplore’.
There are but few men whose lives abound in such wild and romantic
adventure, and, for the most part, crowned with success.--PRESCOTT.
The writer does not mean ‘adventures so wild, so romantic, and so
successful in the main’; that is shown by the qualifying parenthesis,
which is obviously one of comment on the individual case. What he does
mean ought to have been given in two sentences: ‘There are but few ...
adventure;--’s, moreover, was for the most part crowned with success’.
The Sultan regrets that the distance and the short notice alone
prevent him from coming in person.--_Times._
This is as much as to say that the Sultan wishes there were more
obstacles. Read: ‘The Sultan regrets that he cannot come in person;
nothing but the distance and the short notice could prevent him’.
48. DEMONSTRATIVE, NOUN, AND PARTICIPLE OR ADJECTIVE
Of the forms, _persons interested_, _the persons interested_, _those
interested_, _those who are interested_, one or another may better suit
a particular phrase or context. _Those interested_ is the least to be
recommended, especially with an active participle or adjective. The
form _those persons interested_ is a hybrid, and is very seldom used by
any good writer; but it is becoming so common in inferior work that it
is thought necessary to give many examples. The first two, of the form
_those interested_, will pass, though _those who were concerned_, _all
who drive_, would be better. In the others _that_ and _those_ should be
either replaced by _the_ or (sometimes) simply omitted.
The idea of a shortage had hardly entered the heads even of _those_
most immediately _concerned_.--_Times._
They are the terror of all _those driving_ or riding spirited
horses.--_Times._
At every time and in every place throughout _that_ very limited
_portion_ of time and space _open_ to human observation.--BALFOUR.
_That part_ of the regular army _quartered_ at home should be grouped
by divisions.--_Times._
Here they beheld acres of _that_ stupendous _growth seen_ only in the
equinoctial regions.--PRESCOTT.
It is not likely that General Kuropatkine has amassed _those
reserves_ of military stores and supplies plainly _required_ by the
circumstances of his situation.--_Times._
The insurrection had been general throughout the country, at least
_that portion_ of it _occupied_ by the Spaniards.--PRESCOTT.
My amendment would be that _that part_ of the report _dealing_ with
the dividend on the ‘A’ shares ... be not adopted.--Company report.
We shall fail to secure _that unanimity_ of thought and doctrine so
_indispensable_ both for....--_Times._
... in order to minimize the effect produced by _that portion_ of the
Admirals’ report _favourable_ to England.--_Times._
A struggle ... which our nation must be prepared to face in the last
resort, or else give way to _those countries_ not _afraid_ to accept
the responsibilities and sacrifices inseparable from Empire.--_Times._
Civil servants will not, nay, cannot, work with _that freedom_ of
action so _essential_ to good work in the case of such persons, so
long as....--_Times._
To _those Colonies unable_ to concur with these suggestions a warning
should be addressed.--_Times._
49. FALSE SCENT
It is most annoying to a reader to be misled about the construction,
and therefore most foolish in a writer to mislead him. In the sentences
that follow, _facilities_ and _excesses_ are naturally taken as in the
same construction, and similarly _influences_ and _nature_, until the
ends of the sentences show us that we have gone wrong. These are very
bad cases; but minor offences of the kind are very common, and should
be carefully guarded against.
He gloats over the facilities the excesses and the blunders of the
authorities have given his comrades for revolutionary action among the
masses.--_Times._
The influences of that age, his open, kind, susceptible nature,
to say nothing of his highly untoward situation, made it
more than usually difficult for him to cast aside or rightly
subordinate.--CARLYLE.
That there is no comma between _facilities_ and _the excesses_ is no
defence, seeing how often commas go wrong; indeed the comma after _age_
in the second piece, which is strictly wrong, is a proof how little
reliance is to be placed on such signs.
50. MISPLACEMENT OF WORDS
Generous interpretation will generally get at a writer’s meaning; but
for him to rely on that is to appeal _ad misericordiam_. Appended to
the sentences, when necessary, is the result of supposing them to mean
what they say.
It is with grief and pain, that, _as admirers of the British
aristocracy_, we find ourselves obliged to admit the existence of so
many ill qualities in a person whose name is in Debrett.--THACKERAY.
(implies that admirers must admit this more than other people)
It is from this fate that the son of a commanding prime minister is
_at any rate_ preserved.--BAGEHOT. (implies that _preserved_ is a weak
word used instead of a stronger)
And even if we could suppose it to be our duty, it is not one which,
_as was shown in the last chapter_, we are practically competent to
perform.--BALFOUR.
The chairman said there was no sadder sight in the world than to
see women drunk, because they seemed to lose _complete_ control of
themselves. (implies that losing complete control leaves you with less
than if you lost incomplete control)
The soldiers are deeply chagrined at having had to give up positions,
_in obedience to orders_, which the Japanese could not take.--_Times._
Great and heroic men have existed, who had almost no other information
than by the printed page. I _only_ would say, that it needs a strong
head to bear that diet.--EMERSON. (implies that no one else would say
it)
Yes, the laziest of human beings, through the providence of God, _a
being, too, of rather inferior capacity_, acquires the written part of
a language so difficult that....--BORROW.
Right or wrong as his hypothesis may be, no one that knows him will
suspect that he himself had not seen it, and seen over it.... Neither,
_as we often hear_, is there any superhuman faculty required to follow
him.--CARLYLE. (implies that we often hear there is not)
This, we say to ourselves, may be all very true (for have we, _too_,
not browsed in the Dictionary of National Biography?); but why does
Tanner say it all, just at that moment, to....--_Times._ (implies
that others have refrained from browsing)
But in 1798 the Irish rising was crushed in a defeat of the insurgents
at Vinegar Hill; and Tippoo’s death in the storm of his own capital,
Seringapatam, _only_ saved him from witnessing the English conquest of
Mysore.--J. R. GREEN. (implies that that was all it saved him from)
51. AMBIGUOUS POSITION
In this matter judgement is required. A captious critic might find
examples on almost every page of almost any writer; but most of
them, though they may strictly be called ambiguous, would be quite
justifiable. On the other hand a careless writer can nearly always
plead, even for a bad offence, that an attentive reader would take
the thing the right way. That is no defence; a rather inattentive and
sleepy reader is the true test; if the run of the sentence is such that
he at first sight refers whatever phrase is in question to the wrong
government, then the ambiguity is to be condemned.
Louis XVIII, dying in 1824, was succeeded, as Charles X, by his
brother the Count d’Artois.--E. SANDERSON. (The sleepy reader,
assisted by memories of James the First and Sixth, concludes, though
not without surprise, which perhaps finally puts him on the right
track, that Louis XVIII of France was also Charles X of some other
country)
In 1830 Paris overthrew monarchy by divine right.--MORLEY. (_By divine
right_ looks so much more like an adverbial than an adjectival phrase
that the sleepy reader takes it with _overthrew_)
(From review of a book on ambidexterity) Two kinds of emphatic
type are used, and both are liberally sprinkled about the pages
on some principle which is not at all obvious. The practice may
have its merits, like ambidexterity, but it is generally eschewed
by good writers who know their business, although they are not
ambidextrous.--_Times._ (The balance of the sentence is extremely bad
if the _although_ clause is subordinated to _who_; and the sleepy
reader accordingly does not take it so, but with _is eschewed_, and so
makes nonsense)
It was a temper not only legal, but pedantic in its legality,
intolerant from its very sense of a moral order and law _of_ the
lawlessness and disorder of a personal tyranny.--J. R. GREEN.
The library over the porch of the church, which is large and handsome,
contains one thousand printed books.--R. CURZON. (A large and handsome
library, or porch, or church?)
Both these last are very unkind to the poor sleepy reader; it is true
that in one of them he is inexcusable if he goes wrong, but we should
for our own sakes give him as few chances of going wrong as possible.
Luck and dexterity always give more pleasure than intellect and
knowledge; because they fill up what they fall _on to_ the brim at
once, and people run to them with acclamation at the splash.--LANDOR.
(_On_ and _to_ so regularly belong together now, though they did
not in Landor’s time, that it is disconcerting to be asked to pause
between them)
52. AMBIGUOUS ENUMERATION
In comma’d enumerations, care should be taken not to insert appositions
that may be taken, even if only at first sight, for separate members.
Some high officials of the Headquarter Staff, including the officer
who is primus inter pares, the Director of Military Operations, and
the Director of Staff duties....--_Times._ (Two, or three, persons?
Probably two; but those who can be sure of this do not need the
descriptive clause, and those who need it cannot be sure)
Lord Curzon, Sir Edmond Elles, the present Military Member, and
the Civilian Members of Council traverse the most material of Lord
Kitchener’s statements of fact.--_Times._ (Is Sir E. Elles the
Military Member? No need to tell any one who knows; and any one who
does not know is not told)
I here wish to remark that Lord Dufferin first formed the Mobilization
Committee, of which the Commander-in-Chief is President, and the
Military Member, Secretary, Military Department, and the heads of
departments both at Army Headquarters and under the Government of
India, are members with the express intention of....--_Times._ (Is the
Military Member Secretary of the Mobilization Committee? Well, he may
be, but a certain amount of patience shows us that the sentence we are
reading does not tell us so)
53. ANTICS
A small selection must suffice. Straining after the dignified, the
unusual, the poignant, the high-flown, the picturesque, the striking,
often turns out badly. It is not worth while to attain any of these
aims at the cost of being unnatural.
1. Use of stiff, full-dress, literary, or out-of-the-way words.
And in no direction was the slightest concern _evinced_.--_Times._
The majority display _scant_ anxiety for news.--_Times._
... treating his characters on broader lines, occupying himself with
more elemental emotions and types, and forsaking altogether his
almost _meticulous_ analysis of motive and temperament.--_Westminster
Gazette._ (We recommend to this reviewer a more meticulous use of the
dictionary)
And most probably he is voted a fool for not doing as many men in
similar positions are doing--viz., making up for a lack of principle
by an abundance of _bawbees_ easily extracted from a large class of
contractors who are only too willing....--_Times._
It is Victor Hugo’s people, the motives on which they act, the means
they take to carry out their objects, their relations to one another,
that strike us as so _monumentally_ droll.--_Times._
Nothing definite has been decided upon as to the exact date of the
visits, the _venue_ of the visits, the....--_Times._
2. Pretentious circumlocution.
That life was brought to a close in November 1567, at an age,
probably, not far from _the one fixed by the sacred writer as the term
of human existence_.--PRESCOTT.
She skated extremely badly, but with an enjoyment that was almost
pathetic, _in consideration of the persistence of ‘frequent
fall’_.--E. F. BENSON.
The question of an extension of the Zemstvos to the southwest
provinces is believed to be under consideration. It is understood that
the visit of General Kleigels to St. Petersburg is _not unconnected
therewith_.--_Times._
3. Poetic phraseology, especially the Carlylese superlative. Almost any
page of Milton’s prose will show whence Carlyle had this; but it is
most offensive in ordinary modern writing.
A period when, as she puts it, men and women of fashion ‘tried not to
be themselves, yet never so successfully displayed _the naked hearts
of them_’.--_Times._
The last week in February was harnessing her seven bright steeds in
shining tandem in the silent courtyard of the time to be.--_The Lamp._
Our enveloping movements since some days prove successful, and
fiercest battle is now proceeding.--_Times._
The unhappy man persuades himself that he has in truth become a new
creature, of the wonderfullest symmetry.--CARLYLE.
4. Patronizing superiority expressed by describing simple things in
long words.
The skating-rink, where happy folk all day slide with set purpose on
the elusive material, and with great content perform mystic evolutions
of the most complicated order.--E. F. BENSON.
5. The determined picturesque.
Across the street blank shutters flung back the gaslight in cold
smears.--KIPLING.
The outflung white water at the foot of a homeward-bound Chinaman
not a hundred yards away, and her shadow-slashed rope-purfled sails
bulging sideways like insolent cheeks.--KIPLING.
An under-carry of grey woolly spindrift of a slaty colour flung
itself noiselessly in the opposite direction, a little above the tree
tops.--CROCKETT.
Then for a space the ground was more clayey, and a carpet of green
water-weeds were combed and waved by the woven ropes of water.--E. F.
BENSON.
At some distance off, in Winchester probably, which pricked the
blue haze of heat with dim spires, a church bell came muffled and
languid.--E. F. BENSON.
A carriage drive lay in long curves like a flicked whip lash,
surmounting terrace after terrace set with nugatory nudities.--E. F.
BENSON.
6. Recherché epithets.
Perhaps both Milton and Beethoven would live in our memories as
writers of idylls, had not a _brusque_ infirmity dreadfully shut them
off from their fellow men.--_Times._
The high _canorous_ note of the north-easter.--STEVENSON.
By specious and _clamant_ exceptions.--STEVENSON.
7. Formal antithesis or parallel. This particular form of artificiality
is perhaps too much out of fashion to be dangerous at present. The
great storehouse of it is in Macaulay.
He had neither the qualities which make dulness respectable, nor the
qualities which make libertinism attractive.--MACAULAY.
The first two kings of the House of Hanover had neither those
hereditary rights which have often supplied the place of merit, nor
those personal qualities which have often supplied the defect of
title.--MACAULAY.
But he was indolent and dissolute, and had early impaired a
fine estate with the dice-box, and a fine constitution with the
bottle.--MACAULAY.
The disclosure of the stores of Greek literature had wrought the
revolution of the Renascence. The disclosure of the older mass of
Hebrew literature wrought the revolution of the Reformation.--J. R.
GREEN.
8. Author’s self-consciousness.
‘You mean it is,’ she said--‘about Bertie’. Charlie made the noise
usually written ‘Pshaw’.--E. F. BENSON.
9. Intrusive smartness--another form of self-consciousness.
Round her lay piles of press notices, which stripped the American
variety of the English language bare of epithets.--E. F. BENSON.
Income-tax payers are always treated to the fine words which butter
no parsnips, and are always assured that it is really a danger to the
State to go on skinning them in time of peace to such an extent as to
leave little integument to remove in time of war.--_Times._
Yet in the relentless city, where no one may pause for a moment unless
he wishes to be left behind in the great universal race for gold which
begins as soon as a child can walk, and ceases not until he is long
past walking, the climbing of the thermometer into the nineties _is
an acrobatic feat which concerns the thermometer only_, and at the
junction of Sixth Avenue and Broadway there was no slackening in the
tides of the affairs of men.--E. F. BENSON.
54. MISCELLANEOUS TYPES OF JOURNALESE
Mr. Lionel Phillips maintained that it was impossible to introduce
white unskilled _labour_ on a large scale _as a payable proposition_
without lowering the position of the white man.--_Times._
How _labour_ can be a _proposition_, and how a _proposition_ can be
_payable_ it is not easy to say. The sentence seems to mean: ‘to
introduce ... labour on a large scale and make it pay’. This is what
comes of a fondness for abstracts.
They have not hitherto discovered the formula for the intelligent
use of our unrivalled resources for the _satisfaction of our
security_.--_Times._
This perhaps means: ‘They have not yet discovered how our unrivalled
resources may be made to ensure our safety’.
An attempt to efface the ill-effects of the Czar’s refusal to see the
workmen has been made _by_ the grant _of_ an interview _by_ the Czar
_at_ Tsarkoe Selo _to_ a body _of_ workmen officially selected to
represent the masses.--_Spectator._
The powerful and convincing article on the question of War Office
administration as it affects the Volunteers to be found in this
month’s National.--_Spectator._
The Russian Government is at last face to face with the greatest
crisis of the war, _in the shape of the fact that_ the Siberian
railway....--_Spectator._
No year passes now without evidence of the truth of the
statement that the work of government is becoming increasingly
difficult.--_Spectator._
It has taken a leading part in protesting against the Congo State’s
treatment of natives controlled by it, and in procuring the pressure
which the House of Commons has put upon our Government with a view to
international insistence on fulfilment of the obligations entered upon
by the Congo Government as regards native rights.--_Times._
The outcome of a desire to convince the Government of the expediency
of granting the return recently ordered by the House with regard to
the names, ....--_Times._
In default of information of the result of the deliberations which
it has been stated the Imperial Defence Committee have been engaged
in....--_Times._
The volunteer does not volunteer to be compelled to suffer long,
filthy, and neglected illnesses and too often death, yet such was
South Africa on a vast scale, and is inevitable in war under the
present official indifference.--_Times._
55. SOMEWHAT, &c.
Indulgence in qualifying adverbs, as _perhaps_, _possibly_, _probably_,
_rather_, _a little_, _somewhat_, amounts with English journalists
to a disease; the intemperate orgy of moderation is renewed every
morning. As _somewhat_ is rapidly swallowing up the rest, we shall
almost confine our attention to it; and it is useless to deprecate the
use without copious illustration. Examples will be classified under
headings, though these are not quite mutually exclusive.
1. _Somewhat_ clearly illogical.
A number of questions to the Prime Minister have been put upon the
paper with the object of eliciting information as to the personnel of
the proposed Royal Commission and the scope of their inquiry. These
are now _somewhat belated_ in view of the official announcement made
this morning.--_Times._ (The announcement contained both the list of
members and the full reference)
Thrills which gave him _rather a unique_ pleasure.--HUTTON.
Russian despatches are _somewhat inconsistent_, one of them stating
that there is no change in the position of the armies, while another
says that the Japanese advance continues.--_Times._
Being faint with hunger I was _somewhat in a listless condition_
bordering on stupor.--CORELLI.
In the light of these, it would be hard to say what full belatedness,
inconsistency, and listlessness may be.
2. _Somewhat_ with essentially emphatic words.
We may call a thing dirty, or filthy; if we choose the latter, we mean
to be emphatic; it is absurd to use the emphatic word and take away its
emphasis with _somewhat_, when we might use the gentler word by itself.
A member of the Legislative Council is allowed now to speak in
Dutch if he cannot express himself clearly in English; under the
proposed arrangement he will be able to decide for himself in which
medium he can express himself the more clearly. Surely a _somewhat
infinitesimal_ point.--_Times._
Thirdly, it is _rather agonizing_ at times to the
philologist.--_Times._
The distances at which the movements are being conducted receive a
_somewhat startling_ illustration from the statement that....--_Times._
Under these circumstances it is _somewhat extraordinary_ to endeavour
to save the Government from blame.--_Times._
In various evidently ‘well-informed’ journals the _somewhat amazing_
proposition is set up that....--_Times._
But unfortunately the word ‘duties’ got accidentally substituted
for ‘bounties’ in two places, and made the utterance _somewhat
unintelligible_ to the general reader.--_Times._
The songs are sung by students to the accompaniment of a _somewhat
agonizing_ band.--_Times._
There is a mysterious man-killing orchid, a great Eastern jewel of
State, and many other properties, some of them _a little well worn_,
suitable for the staging of a tale of mystery.--_Spectator._
Some of the instances in these two classes would be defended as
humorous under-statement. But if this hackneyed trick is an example of
the national humour, we had better cease making reflections on German
want of humour.
3. _Somewhat_ shyly announcing an epigrammatic or well-chosen phrase.
There is a very pretty problem awaiting the decision of Prince
Bülow, and one which is entirely worthy of his _somewhat acrobatic_
diplomacy.--_Times._
Gaston engaged in a controversy on the origin of evil, which
terminated by his _somewhat abruptly quitting his Alma
Mater_.--BEACONSFIELD.
Why even Tennyson became an amateur milkman to _somewhat conceal and
excuse the shame and degradation of writing verse_.--CORELLI.
The virtuous but _somewhat unpleasing_ type of the Roman
nation.--_Times._
The sight of these soldiers and sailors sitting round camp-fires in
the midst of the snow in fashionable thoroughfares, transforming the
city into an armed camp, is _somewhat weird_.--_Times._
While Mary was trying to decipher these _somewhat mystic_ lines.--S.
FERRIER.
4. _Somewhat_ conveying a sneer.
It is somewhat strange that any one connected with this institution
should be so unfamiliar with its regulations.--_Times._
... that the conclusion arrived at by the shortest route is
to be accepted--a somewhat extravagant doctrine, according to
which....--BALFOUR.
But very few points of general interest have been elicited in any
quarter by these somewhat academic reflections.--_Times._
This somewhat glowing advertisement of the new loan.--_Times._
5. The genuine _somewhat_, merely tame, timid, undecided, conciliatory,
or polite.
It is somewhat pitiful to see the efforts of a foreign State directed,
not to the pursuit of its own aims by legitimate means, but to the
gratification of personal hostility to a great public servant of
France.--_Times._
I am certain that the clergy themselves only too gladly acquiesce in
this somewhat illogical division of labour.--_Times._
This, no doubt, is what Professor Ray Lankester is driving at in his
somewhat intemperate onslaught.--Times.
The _rather mysterious_ visit of S. Tittoni, the Italian Foreign
Minister, to Germany.--_Times._
These are of _rather remarkable_ promise; the head shows an unusual
power of realizing character under a purely ideal conception.--_Times._
The _rather finely_ conceived statuette called ‘The Human Task’ by Mr.
Oliver Wheatley.--_Times._
It is somewhat the fashion to say that in these days....--_Times._
A letter from one whose learning and experience entitle him to be
heard, conceived, as I think, in a spirit of somewhat exaggerated
pessimism.--_Times._
The statement made by the writer is somewhat open to doubt.--_Times._
I have read with much interest the letters on the subject of
hush-money, especially as they account to me somewhat for the
difficulties I have experienced.--_Times._
It would be valuable if he would somewhat expand his ideas regarding
local defence by Volunteers.--_Times._
Sir,--I have been somewhat interested in the recent correspondence in
your columns.--_Times._
So many persons of undoubted integrity believe in ‘dowsing’ that he is
a somewhat rash man who summarily dismisses the matter.--_Times._
Sir Francis Bertie, whose dislike of unnecessary publicity is somewhat
pronounced.--_Times._
It is not too much to say that any one who hopes to write well had
better begin by abjuring _somewhat_ altogether.
We cannot tell whether this long list will have a dissuasive effect, or
will be referred to foolish individual prejudice against an unoffending
word. But on the first assumption we should like to add that a not
less dissuasive collection might easily be made of the intensifier
_distinctly_ than of the qualifier _somewhat_. The use meant is that
seen in:
The effect as the procession careers through the streets of Berlin is
described as distinctly interesting.
_Distinctly_ gives the patronizing interest, as _somewhat_ gives
the contemptuous indifference, with which a superior person is to
be conceived surveying life; and context too often reveals that the
superiority is imaginary.
56. CLUMSY PATCHING
When a writer detects a fault in what he has written or thought of
writing, his best course is to recast the whole sentence. The next best
is to leave it alone. The worst is to patch it in such a way that the
reader has his attention drawn, works out the original version, and
condemns his author for carelessness aggravated by too low an estimate
of his own intelligence.
Numerous allegations, too, were made of prejudiced treatment _measured
out against_ motorists by rural magistrates.--_Times._ (avoidance of
the jingle in _meted_ out to _motor_ists)
No crew proved to be of the very highest class; but this, perhaps,
_led the racing to be_ on the whole close and exciting.--_Times._
(avoidance of the jingle in led to the rac_ing_ be_ing_)
The Lord Mayor last night entertained the Judges _to_ a banquet at the
Mansion House.--_Times._ (avoidance of double _at_)
The occupants talked, inspected the cars _of one another_,
interchanged tales of....--_Times._ (avoidance, in grammatical
pusillanimity, of _one another’s cars_)
... who have only themselves in view _by_ breaking through
it.--RICHARDSON. (avoidance of double _in_)
He nodded, _as one who would say_, ‘I have already thought of
that’.--CROCKETT. (avoidance of the archaism, which however is the
only natural form, _as who should say_)
It is now practically certain that the crews of Nebogatoff’s squadron
were in a state of mutiny, and that this is the explanation _for_ the
surrender _of_ these vessels.--_Times._ (avoidance of double _of_)
And _for_ the first time _after_ twenty years the Whigs saw themselves
again in power.--J. R. GREEN. (Avoidance of double _for_; if _after_
had been originally intended, we should have had _at last_ instead of
_for the first time_)
And oppressive laws forced even these _few_ with _scant_ exceptions to
profess Protestantism.--J. R. GREEN. (To avoid the repetition of _few_
the affected word _scant_ has been admitted)
Given competition, any line would vie with the others in mirrors
and gilded furniture; but if there is none, why spend a penny? Not
a passenger the less will travel because the mode of transit is
_bestial_.--E. F. BENSON. (To avoid the overdone word _beastly_--which
however happens to be the right one here; _bestial_ describes
character or conduct)
There is, indeed, a kind of timorous atheism in the man who dares not
trust God to _render_ all efforts to interpret his Word--and what is
criticism but interpretation?--work together for good.--_Spectator._
(_Render_ is substituted for _make_ because _make efforts_ might
be taken as complete without the _work together_ that is due.
Unfortunately, _to render efforts work together_ is not even English
at all)
57. OMISSION OF THE CONJUNCTION ‘THAT’
This is quite legitimate, but often unpleasant. It is partly a matter
of idiom, as, _I presume you know_, but _I assume that you know_;
partly of avoiding false scent, as in the sixth example below, where
_scheme_ might be object to _discover_. In particular it is undesirable
to omit _that_ when a long clause or phrase intervenes between it and
the subject and verb it introduces, as in the first four examples.
And it is to be hoped, _as the tree-planting season has arrived_,
Stepney will now put its scheme in hand.--_Times._
Sir,--We notice _in a leading article in your issue to-day on
the subject of the carriage of Australian mails_ you imply that
the increased price demanded by the Orient Pacific Line was due
to....--_Times._
Lord Balfour ... moved that it is necessary, _before the
constituencies are asked to determine upon the desirability of such
conference_, they should be informed first....--_Times._
Lord Spencer held that it was impossible _with regard to a question
which had broken up the Government and disturbed the country_ they
could go into a conference which....--_Times._
If the Australian is to be convinced that is an unreasonable wish, it
will not be by arguments about taxation.--_Times._
I think he would discover the scheme unfolded and explained in them is
a perfectly intelligible and comprehensive one.--_Times._
It is not till He cometh the ideal will be seen.--_Times._
And it is only by faith the evils you mention as productive of war can
be cast out of our hearts.--_Times._
I do not wish it to be understood that I consider all those who
applied for work during the past two winters and who are now seeking
employment are impostors.--_Times._
I assume Turkey would require such a cash payment of at least
£500,000.--_Times._
Tawno leaped into the saddle, where he really looked like Gunnar of
Hlitharend, save and except the complexion of Gunnar was florid,
whereas that of Tawno was of nearly Mulatto darkness.--BORROW.
In some of these the motive is obvious, to avoid one _that_-clause
depending on another; the end was good, but the means bad; a more
thorough recasting was called for.
58. MEANINGLESS ‘WHILE’
_While_, originally temporal, has a legitimate use also in contrasts.
The further colourless use of it, whether with verb or with participle,
as a mere elegant variation for _and_ is very characteristic of
journalese, and much to be deprecated.
Of its value there can be no question. The editor’s article on
‘Constitutions’, for example, and that of Mr. W. Wyse on ‘Law’ both
well repay most careful study; _while_ when Sir R. Jebb writes
on ‘Literature’, Dr. Henry Jackson on ‘Philosophy’, or Professor
Waldstein on ‘Sculpture’, their contributions must be regarded as
authoritative.--_Spectator._
The fireman was killed on the spot, and the driver as well as the
guard of the passenger train was slightly injured; _while_ the up-line
was blocked for some time with débris from broken trucks of the goods
train.--_Times._
The deer on the island took some interest in the proceeding, while the
peacocks on the lawn screamed at the right time.--_Birmingham Daily
Post._
It cannot be contended that it is more profitable to convey a
passenger the twenty-four miles to Yarmouth for payment than to
accept the same payment without performing the service; _while_, if
the company wish to discourage the use of cheap week-end tickets, why
issue them at all?--_Times._
59. COMMERCIALISMS
Certain uses of _such_, _the same_, and other words, redolent of
commerce and the law, should be reserved for commercial and legal
contexts. _Anent_, which has been noticed in Part I, is a legalism of
this kind. In the Brontë instances quoted, a twang of flippancy will be
observed; the other writers are probably unconscious.
This gentleman’s state of mind was very harrowing, and I was glad when
he wound up his exposition of the same.--C. BRONTË.
The present was no occasion for showy array; my dun mist crape would
suffice, and I sought the same in the great oak wardrobe in the
dormitory.--C. BRONTË.
There are certain books that almost defy classification, and this
volume ... is one of such.--_Daily Telegraph._
I am pleased to read the correspondence in your paper, and hope that
good will be the result of the same.--_Daily Telegraph._
The man who has approached nearest to the teaching of the Master, and
carried the same to its logical and practical conclusion is General
Booth.--_Daily Telegraph._
Do I believe that by not having had the hands of a bishop laid upon my
head I cannot engage in the outward and visible commemoration of the
Lord’s Supper as not being fit to receive the same?--_Daily Telegraph._
But do the great majority of people let their belief in the hereafter
affect their conduct with regard to the same. I think not.--_Daily
Telegraph._
Let us hope, Sir, that it may be possible in your own interests to
continue the same till the subject has had a good innings.--_Daily
Telegraph._
I believe, and have believed since, a tiny child, made miserable by
the loss of a shilling, I prayed my Heavenly Father to help me to
recover the same.--_Daily Telegraph._
It is of course possible, in this connexion, that the Prayer Book is
responsible for ‘the same’.
If I am refused the Sacrament I do not believe that I shall have
less chance of entering the Kingdom of God than if I received such
Sacrament.--_Daily Telegraph._
But when it comes to us following his life and example, in all
its intricate details, all will, I think, agree that such is
impossible.--_Daily Telegraph._
An appeal to philanthropy is hardly necessary, the grounds for such
being so self-evident.--_Times._
... such a desire it should be the purpose of a Unionist Government
to foster; but such will not be attained under the present regime in
Dublin.--_Times._
... regaling themselves on half-pints at the said village
hostelries.--BORROW.
Having read with much interest the letters re ‘believe only’ now
appearing in the _Daily Telegraph_....--_Daily Telegraph._
He ruined himself and family by his continued experiments for the
benefit of the British nation.--_Times._
60. PET PHRASES
Vivid writers must be careful not to repeat any conspicuous phrase so
soon that a reader of ordinary memory has not had time to forget it
before it invites his attention again. Whatever its merits, to use it
twice (unless deliberately and with point) is much worse than never
to have thought of it. The pages below are those of Green’s _Short
History_ (1875).
The temper of the first [King George] was that of a gentleman usher.
p. 704.
Bute was a mere court favourite, with the abilities of a gentleman
usher. p. 742.
‘For weeks’, laughs Horace Walpole, ‘it rained gold boxes’. p. 729.
‘We are forced to ask every morning what victory there is’, laughed
Horace Walpole. p. 737.
The two following passages occur on pp. 6 and 81 of _The Bride of
Lammermoor_ (Standard Edition).
In short, Dick Tinto’s friends feared that he had acted like the
animal called the sloth, which, having eaten up the last green leaf
upon the tree where it has established itself, ends by tumbling down
from the top, and dying of inanition.
‘... but as for us, Caleb’s excuses become longer as his diet turns
more spare, and I fear we shall realise the stories they tell of
the sloth: we have almost eaten up the last green leaf on the plant,
and have nothing left for it but to drop from the tree and break our
necks.’
61. ‘ALSO’ AS CONJUNCTION; AND ‘&c.’
_Also_ is an adverb; the use of it as a conjunction is slovenly, if not
illiterate.
We are giving these explanations gently as friends, also patiently as
becomes neighbours.--_Times._
‘Special’ is a much overworked word, it being used to mean great in
degree, also peculiar in kind.--R. G. WHITE.
Mr. Sonnenschein’s volume will show by parallel passages Shakespeare’s
obligations to the ancients, also the obligations of modern writers to
Shakespeare.--_Times._
The use of _&c._, except in business communications and such contexts,
has often the same sort of illiterate effect. This is very common, but
one example must suffice.
There are others with faults of temper, &c., evident enough, beside
whom we live content, as if the air about them did us good.--C. BRONTË.
INDEX
_In this index all references are to pages. Small italics are used
for words and phrases; small roman type for subjects incidentally
mentioned; capitals for subjects expressly, even if not fully, treated._
A
_A-_, 41-2.
_A_ BETWEEN ADJECTIVE AND NOUN, 329-30.
ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTION, 115-6.
Absolute construction and stops, 222, 241-2, 265.
ABSTRACT WORDS, 4, 5-6.
ACCENT, SENTENCE, 296-8.
_Acquiesce to_, 164.
_Acte de malveillance_, 30.
Adjectival clause, 235.
ADJECTIVAL CLAUSE IN PUNCTUATION, 242-4.
ADVERB AND ADVERBIAL CLAUSE IN PUNCTUATION, 244-7.
Adverbial clause, 236.
_Adverse from_, 163.
_Aesthophysiology_, 23.
_Aggravate_, 59.
_Aggress_, 20.
_Aim to_, 132-3, 164.
AIRS AND GRACES, Cap. III.
_-al_, 22, 42.
_Albeit_, 17, 194, 196-7.
_Alit_, 39-40.
ALLITERATION, 292.
ALLUSION, 307-8.
_Alma mater_, 27.
_Almost quite_, 339.
_ALSO_, CONJ., AND _&C._, 360.
_Altogether_, 11.
Amateurs, 127, 194.
AMBIGUITY, 345-8.
Ambiguity, 88, 109, 117, 120, 127, 142, 144-5, 250, 264-5.
Ambiguity and punctuation, 264-5.
AMBIGUOUS ENUMERATION, 348.
AMBIGUOUS POSITION, 347-8.
_Amend_, n., 38-9.
AMERICANISMS, 23-6.
_A-moral_, 41-2.
_Amphitryon_, 174.
Anachronism in thought, 198, 200.
_And_, 233-4, 245.
_AND WHICH_, 85-93.
_AND WHO_, 85-93.
_Anent_, 3.
_Animatedly_, 47.
_Another story_, 175.
_Antagonize_, 4, 24, 26.
_Antecedentem scelestum_, 33.
ANTICS, 348-51.
Antithesis, 292, 350.
_Anyway_, 25.
_Appendicitis_, 19.
ARCHAISM, 193-200.
Archaism, 17, 83, 103, 137.
Archaism, positive and negative, 198-200.
ARCHAISM, SUSTAINED, 198-9.
_Argon_, 19.
_Arise_, 9.
_Arrière pensée_, 34.
_As also_, 189.
_As_ and _while_ clauses, slovenly, 189.
_AS_, CASE, 62-4.
_AS_ CLAUSE, CAUSAL, 298-300.
_As far as, that_, 168-70.
_As if_, 156-7.
_AS_, LIBERTIES WITH, 324-6.
_AS_, OMISSION OF, 324.
_As to_, 166-7.
_AS TO WHETHER_, 333-4.
_As who should say_, 325-6.
_At anyrate_, 280.
_At the letter_, 33.
_Aught_, 194, 197.
_Au pied de la lettre_, 32.
_Automedon_, 174.
AUXILIARIES, SPLIT, 342-3.
_Avail_, 321.
_Available_, 43.
_Averse from_, 162-3.
Avoidance, clumsy, 17, 74, 125, 179, 277, 355-6, 357.
_Await_, 9.
_Awful_, 49-50.
B
_Back-number_, 25.
_Back of_, 25.
Bagehot, 210-2.
BALANCE INVERSION, 182-7.
Balfour, 225, 249.
_Ballon d’essai_, 30.
_Banal_, 38-9.
_Banality_, 38-9.
_Bang in the eye_, 48.
Bastard enumeration, 251.
_BE_ AND _DO_, 330.
Beadnell, 219.
_Bedrock_, 51.
_Benefits of_, 165.
Besant, 198.
_Bethink_, 9.
_Bêtise_, 27.
_BETWEEN ... OR_, 328-9.
BETWEEN TWO STOOLS, 327-8.
_Between you and I_, 61.
_Bewilderedly_, 47.
_Bien entendu_, 27.
_Bike_, 49.
_Birrelling_, 51.
_Blooming_, 49-50.
_Boom_, 52.
Borrow, G., 13.
_Both ... as well as_, 313.
_Bounder_, 48, 50.
_Bow-street_, 277.
BRACHYLOGY, 326.
Brackets & double dashes, 272, 286.
BRACKETS AND STOPS, 270-1.
_Brisken_, 21.
_Briticism_, 43.
Brontë, C., 29, 358.
_Bureaucracy_, 46.
Burke, E., 111.
_BUT_, SUPERFLUOUS, 334.
C
_Cad_, 50.
_Camaraderie_, 27.
CARELESS REPETITION, 303-4.
Carlyle, 44, 349.
CASE, 60-4.
_Case_, 6.
CASE AFTER _as_ AND _than_, 62-4.
CASE, COMPOUND POSSESSIVE, 64.
CASE CONFUSION, 61-2.
Case in absolute construction, 115-6.
CASE IN APPOSITION, 60.
CASE OF COMPLEMENT, 60.
CASE OF RELATIVES, 93-4, 99-100.
CAUSAL _as_ CLAUSE, 298-300.
_Cela va sans dire_, 31.
_Chamade_, 29.
_Chasseur_, 27, 37.
_Cherchez la femme_, 35.
_Chic_, 51.
CIRCUMLOCUTION, 6.
Circumlocution, 165-70, 349.
_Claim_, 317-8.
_Climb down_, 51.
_Closure_, 23.
CLUMSY PATCHING, 355-6.
_Coastal_, 42.
COLLOQUIALISMS, 331.
COLON, 263-4.
Colon, changed usage of, 220, 222.
_Come into her life_, 215.
Comma before _that_, 236-7, 249-50.
COMMA BETWEEN INDEPENDENT SENTENCES, 254-7.
Comma, distinct functions, 221-2.
COMMA MISPLACED, 248-50.
COMMA, UNACCOUNTABLE, 262-3.
Commas, illogical, 241.
Commas, unnecessary, 232.
_Commercialisms_, 358-9.
Common case, 60.
COMMON PARTS, 314-6.
COMPARATIVES, 70-4.
_Complacent_, 10.
_Complaisant_, 10.
Compositors, 219, 230, 266, 273, 282.
COMPOUND PASSIVES, 319-21.
Compound possessive, 64, 122-3.
Compound verbs and inversion, 184-6.
Compound words, 20.
_Comprehensively_, 8.
_Comprise_, 12.
_Concision_, 18.
CONDITIONALS, 156-8.
CONDITIONALS, SUBJUNCTIVE, 157-8.
Conditionals, subjunctive, 192-3, 195.
CONFUSION WITH NEGATIVES, 321-3.
CONJUNCTIONS, COMPOUND, 165-70.
Conjunctions, coordinating and subordinating, 63, 255.
_Consequential_, 17.
_Consist of_ or _in_, 163-4.
_Content myself by_, 163.
_Contest_, vb, 12.
_Continuance_, 10.
_Continuation_, 10.
_Continuity_, 10.
CONTRADICTIONS IN TERMS, 339-41.
_Contumacity_, 45.
COORDINATION OF RELATIVES, 85-100.
COPULA, NUMBER, 65-7.
Corelli, 47.
_Cornering_, 51.
_Correctitude_, 21.
_Coûte que coûte_, 27-8.
Criterion of rightness, 3, 8, 41, 42, 165, 181, 347.
Crockett, 200.
_Cryptic_, 50.
_Cui bono?_, 35-6, 306.
D
_Dans cette galère_, 32.
DASHES, 266-75.
DASHES AND STOPS, 269-75.
DASHES, DEBATABLE QUESTIONS, 269-74.
DASHES, DOUBLE, 270-1.
DASHES, MISUSES, 274-5.
DASHES, TYPES, 267-9.
Dead metaphors, 201-9.
DECAPITABLE SENTENCES, 303.
DEFINING RELATIVES, 75-85.
Defining relatives in punctuation, 240-1, 242-4.
_Déjeuner_, 27.
_Démarche_, 30.
_Demean_, 16.
_Démenti_, 29-30.
DEMONSTRATIVE, NOUN, AND PARTICIPLE OR ADJECTIVE, 344-5.
_Depend upon it_, 213.
_Dependable_, 43.
_Deplacement_, 21.
_Deprecate_, 12.
_Depreciate_, 12.
De Quincey, 80.
_Desultory_, 18.
_Détente_, 30.
_Determinedly_, 47.
Differentiation, 10, 11, 46, 85.
_Different to_, 162.
_Dilemma_, 208.
DIPLOMATIC FRENCH, 29-30.
_Disagree from_, 163.
_Dishabille_, 37.
_Dispensable_, 43.
_Disposable_, 43.
_Distinction_, 38-9.
Distinction, 217, 319.
_Distinctly_, 355.
_Distinguished_, 38-9.
_Distrait_, 27.
_DO_ AS SUBSTITUTE VERB, 330.
Double dashes & brackets, 272, 286.
DOUBLE EMPHASIS, 341.
_Double event_, 51.
DOUBLE HARNESS, 311-4.
Doubtful gender, 67.
_Doubt that_, 158-60.
DOVETAILING, 33, 308-10.
E
_Each_, 68.
_-edly_, 47.
_E.g._, 311.
_Eirenicon_, 26.
_EITHER_, 69.
_Eke out_, 14-5.
ELEGANT VARIATION, 175-80.
Elegant variation, 30, 163, 211, 357.
Eliot, George, 171.
ELLIPSE IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES, 317.
_Emblem_, vb, 5.
Emerson, 26, 43, 44, 217.
EMPHASIS, DOUBLE, 341.
EMPHATIC INVERSION, 190-1.
_Employé_, 36.
_Endowed by_, 164.
_English_, vb, 2.
_Enjoinder_, 43-4.
_Ennui_, 26, 37.
_Entente_, 29-30.
_Entourage_, 30.
ENUMERATION, 250-4.
ENUMERATION, AMBIGUOUS, 348.
_Envisage_, 7.
Epithets, recherché, 350.
_Epoch-making_, 31, 50.
_Equally as_, 332.
_Ere_, 2, 194, 196-7.
_Especial_, 11.
_Esprit d’escalier_, 32.
_ETC._, SLOVENLY, 360.
_Euchred_, 51.
_Eudaemometer_, 23.
_Euphemism_, 12.
EUPHONY, 291-304.
Euphony, 46-7, 102, 104, 122, 132, 326;
and punctuation, 245.
Euphony with relatives, 84.
_Euphuism_, 12.
_Evasion_, 11.
_Excepting_, 46.
EXCLAMATION AND QUESTION, 259-61.
EXCLAMATION MARK, 258-62.
EXCLAMATION MARK, INTERNAL, 261-2.
EXCLAMATORY INVERSION, 181-2.
EX-PARTICIPLES, 110-1.
_Experimentalize_, 46.
_Exploit_, vb, 51.
_Extemporaneous_, 45.
F
_Faits divers_, 28.
_Fall_ (autumn), 24.
FALSE SCENT, 345-6.
False scent, 93, 123-4, 246, 264-5, 274, 356.
_Fanfaronnade_, 29.
FAR-FETCHED WORDS, 4-5.
_Femininity_, 38.
Ferrier, S., 67.
Fielding, 215.
_Find fault to_, 164.
_Fix up_, 25.
Flexibility, 41, 120.
FLOOD-OF-TEARS-AND-SEDAN-CHAIR, 173.
_Floored_, 51.
_For_, 233-4, 245.
_For all it is worth_, 48.
_Forbid from_, 164.
_Forceful_, 21-2.
FOREIGN WORDS, 26-39.
FOREIGN WORDS, ADAPTATION OF, 37-9.
FOREIGN WORDS, BLUNDERS, 34-6.
FOREIGN WORDS TRANSLATED, 30-3.
_Foreword_, 2.
FORMATION AND ANALOGY, 41-3.
FORMATION BLUNDERS, 39-41.
FORMATION, UGLY, 46-7.
FRESH STARTS, 330-1.
_Frills_, 195.
_Frontal attack_, 51.
_Frontispiece_, 51-2.
Fudging in punctuation, 240-1.
FUSED PARTICIPLE, 117-25.
G
_Gallant_, 174.
_Galore_, 174.
_Ganymede_, 174.
_Gaucherie_, 27.
George Eliot, 171.
GERUND, 116-33.
GERUND AND INFINITIVE, 129-33.
GERUND AND PARTICIPLE, 107-10, 119.
GERUND AND POSSESSIVE, 116-25.
GERUND, COMPOUND SUBJECT, 123-4.
GERUND, OMISSION OF SUBJECT, 125-9.
_Get the boot_, 48.
_Globetrotter_, 51.
_Go Nap_, 51.
_Go one better_, 51.
GRAMMAR, 311-31.
GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION, 220-5, 235-63.
Green, J. R., 249, 359.
GROUP SYSTEM IN PUNCTUATION, 228-30.
H
_Half-world_, 31.
_Hebe_, 174.
_Hedge_, vb., 51.
He-or-she, 67.
_Hereof_, 196.
_He said_, 282.
_Homologate_, 7.
_Honey-coloured_, 25.
_Howbeit_, 17, 194, 197.
_However_, 265.
_How it pans out_, 51.
Hugo, 226.
HUMOUR, POLYSYLLABIC, 171-2.
HUMOUR, TYPES, 171-5.
Huxley, 225, 249.
Hybrid words, 41-2, 46.
HYPHENS, 275-80.
Hyphens, 42.
I
_Ideal_, 75.
Idiom, 53, 161, 356.
IDIOMS, MALTREATED, 336-8.
_I. e._, 311.
_IF AND WHEN_, 334-5.
_Ignorance crasse_, 29.
_I guess_, 24.
ILLEGITIMATE INFINITIVES, 317-8.
_Immanence_, 50.
_Immovability_, 46.
IMPERSONAL _one_, 328.
_Impliedly_, 47.
_Inasmuch as_, 166.
_Incentive_, 206.
Incongruity, 194.
_Incontinently_, 9.
Indirect question and punctuation, 238.
_Individual_, 52, 53-6.
INFINITIVE AND GERUND, 129-33.
INFINITIVE, OMISSION OF SUBJECT, 125-9.
INFINITIVE PERFECT, 154-6.
INFINITIVES, ILLEGITIMATE, 317-8.
INFINITIVE, SPLIT, 319.
_-ing_, 107-10.
_Initiative of_, 164.
_Innate_, 12.
_In nowise_, 280.
_Insensate_, 9.
_In so far as, that_, 168-70.
_Instil_, 12.
_Insuccess_, 21.
_Intellectuals_, 22-3.
_Intelligence_, 18.
_Intensate_, 44.
Intervening-noun error in number, 66-7.
_Intimism_, 38-9.
_Intimity_, 38.
INVERSION, 180-93.
Inversion and compound verbs, 184-6.
Inversion and emphasis, 182, 184.
INVERSION, BALANCE, 182-7.
INVERSION, EMPHATIC, 190-1.
INVERSION, EXCLAMATORY, 181-2.
Inversion in _as_ or _than_ clauses, 188-9.
Inversion in relative clauses, 188.
INVERSION IN SYNTACTIC CLAUSES, 187-9.
INVERSION, MISCELLANEOUS, 191-3.
INVERSION, NEGATIVE, 190-1.
_In view of_, 167-8.
_Inwardness_, 50, 52.
IRONY, 215-6.
_Irony_, 15.
_Irreparable_, 12.
Italics, 186.
Italics and irony, 216.
_It should seem_, 194.
_It’s me_, 61.
_It ... that_, 104-7.
_It were_, 195.
J
_Jehu_, 174.
JINGLES, 291-2.
Jonathan Wild, 215.
JOURNALESE, 351-2.
Journalese, 7, 352, 357.
_Judicial_, 8.
_Just_, 25.
K
Kipling 24-5, 175.
_Knock out_, 51.
L
Lamb, Charles, 193.
Lapsus calami, 21.
LATIN ABBREVIATIONS, &c., 311.
_Laughable_, 43.
Laxity, disappearance of, 108, 110-1.
Laxity in punctuation, 235, 244-7.
_Laze_, 51-2.
_Leading question_, 306-7.
_Legislature_, 10.
_Lie_ and _lay_, 40.
_Like_, 331.
_-like_, 278.
Literary critics’ words, 38-9.
LOGIC AND PUNCTUATION, 220-5.
Logic and rhetoric in punctuation, 252.
_Log-rolling_, 51.
LONG AND SHORT DERIVATIVES, 44-6.
Long sentences, 226, 300.
Long words, 349-50.
_Loquently_, 20.
_-ly_, 47, 291.
M
Macaulay, 350.
MALAPROPS, 8-18.
MALTREATED IDIOMS, 336-8.
Mannerism, 47, 190, 195, 210, 212, 217.
MEANING, 331-45.
MEANINGLESS _while_, 357-8.
_Me_, ethic, 199.
_Mercury_, 174.
Meredith, 198.
METAPHOR, 200-9.
Metaphor, live and dead, 201-9.
_Metaphysical_, 16.
_Meticulous_, 38-9, 349.
METRICAL PROSE, 295.
MISPLACEMENT OF WORDS, 346-7.
MISQUOTATION, 305-7.
Mixed metaphor, 203-9.
_Mob_, 49.
Monstrosity stops, 259, 283, 286-7, 290.
_Morale_, 34.
_More and more than ever_, 73.
_More easily imagined than described_, 213.
_More honoured in the breach_, 306.
_More than I can help_, 74.
_Most_, 75.
_Most of any_, 74-5.
_Mutual_, 56-8.
_My_ and _mine_, 40-1.
N
_Naïveté_, 37-8.
_Naivety_, 38.
Native words, 2, 37.
NEGATIVE CONFUSION, 321-3.
NEGATIVE INVERSION, 190-1.
Negatives, resolved and compound, 323.
_Négligé_, 26, 37.
_Negotiate_, 51-2.
_Neither_, 69.
_Neither ... or_, 313.
NEOLOGISMS, 18-23.
Neologisms, scientific, 23.
Newspaper style, 162, 178, 180, 226, 262, 266, 351-2.
_Nice_, 49.
_No_ and _none_, 41.
Noisiness, 202-3.
_Nom de guerre_, 34.
_Nom de plume_, 34.
Nonce-words, 19-20.
NON-DEFINING RELATIVES, 75-85.
_Non est_, 33.
Nouns and abstract expression, 5.
NOUNS OF MULTITUDE, 69.
Nouns used adjectivally, 42, 276.
NUMBER, 65-70.
NUMBER OF COPULA, 65-7.
O
_Oblivion to_, 165.
_Oblivious to_, 161.
_Observance_, 9.
_Œuvre_, 27-8.
_Of sorts_, 51.
_Oft_, 194.
_Oft-times_, 194.
_Ohne Hast ohne Rast_, 33.
_Old-fashioned enough to_, 213.
_Olfactory organ_, 171.
OMISSION OF _as_, 324.
OMISSION OF RELATIVES, 101-2.
Omission of relatives, 84.
OMISSION OF _that_, CONJ., 356-7.
_On a moment’s notice_, 164.
_One_, 67.
_ONE_, IMPERSONAL, 328.
_One’s_ and _his_, 328.
_One’s_ or _his_, 67.
_On your own_, 51.
_Oppositely_, 44.
_Orient_, vb., 31.
ORIGINALITY, CHEAP, 217-8.
Ornament, 35, 215.
Ostentation, 27, 31, 349.
_Our_ and _ours_, 40-1.
OVERLOADING, 343-4.
OVER-STOPPING, 231-4.
Over-stopping, 245, 262-3.
P
Parenthesis, 269, 270.
PARENTHESIS, 247-50.
PARENTHESIS IN RELATIVE CLAUSES, 94-5.
_Partially_, 45-6.
PARTICIPLE AND GERUND, 107-10, 119.
PARTICIPLES, 110-6.
PARTICIPLES ABSOLUTE, 115-6.
PARTICIPLES UNATTACHED, 112-5.
PARTICIPLES WITH _my_, &c., 111-2.
Passive monstrosities, 43.
PASSIVES, COMPOUND, 319-21.
PATCHING, CLUMSY, 355-6.
_Paulo-post future_, 17.
Pedantry, 34, 42, 64, 129, 162.
_Penchant_, 27.
_Perchance_, 4, 196.
PERFECT INFINITIVE, 154-6.
_Perfection_, vb., 44-5.
Period, 226.
_Perseverant_, 21-2.
Personification, 68.
_Perspicuity_, 8-9.
_Peter out_, 48.
PET PHRASES, 359-60.
_Phantasmagoria_, 35.
_Phase_, 5.
_Phenomenal_, 50.
_Philistine_, 50.
Picturesque, 350.
_Picturesquities_, 20.
_Placate_, 24, 26.
PLAYFUL REPETITION, 172-3.
_Play the game_, 51.
Pleonasm, v. Redundancies.
Poetic words, 3, 349.
Polysyllabic humour, 51, 54.
POLYSYLLABIC HUMOUR, 171-2.
_Pontificalibus_, 33.
Possessive, absolute, 40-1.
POSSESSIVE AND GERUND, 116-25.
POSSESSIVE, COMPOUND, 64.
Possessive, compound, 122-3.
_Possible_, 318.
Preciosity, 2.
_Predication_, 13.
_Prediction_, 13.
_Preface_, 2.
_Prefer_, 318.
Preposition at end of clause, 62, 84, 99.
PREPOSITIONS, 161-70.
PREPOSITIONS, COMPOUND, 165-70;
OMITTED, 165;
REPEATED, 293;
SUPERFLUOUS, 165.
_Pretend_, 318.
_Preventative_, 46.
_Probable_, 318.
_Procession_, 11.
_Promote_, 6.
Pronominal variation, 175.
Proportion, 300-3.
_Provided_, 13-4.
_Prudential_, 45.
_Psychological moment_, 50, 52.
PUNCTUATION, Cap. IV.
Punctuation and ambiguity, 264-5.
Punctuation and neatness, 284.
Punctuation and relatives, 78, 242-4.
PUNCTUATION, DIFFICULTIES, 219-24.
Punctuation, full and slight, 225.
Punctuation, group system, 228-31.
Punctuation in scientific and philosophic work, 225, 231.
PUNCTUATION, LOGIC, AND RHETORIC, 220-5.
PUNCTUATION, SPOT PLAGUE, 226-31.
Q
_Qua_, 29.
_Quand même_, 27.
QUESTION AND EXCLAMATION, 259-61.
QUESTION-MARK, INTERNAL, 261-62.
_Quieten_, 45
QUOTATION, 305-11.
Quotation, half-and-half, 237-8, 289.
QUOTATION MARKS, 280-90.
Quotation marks and irony, 216.
Quotation marks and slang, 48, 49, 50.
QUOTATION MARKS AND STOPS, 282-8.
Quotation marks misplaced, 288-9.
QUOTATION MARKS, SINGLE AND DOUBLE, 287-8.
Quotation marks, superfluous, 280-82.
QUOTATION, TRITE, 310-1.
Quotations cut up, 309-10.
R
_Racial_, 22-3, 42.
Railway names, 276-7.
_Raison d’être_, 26.
Reader, 2-3, 7, 36, 98, 210, 225, 228, 230, 231-3, 253, 268, 269,
280-1, 310, 347-8, 355.
Reading aloud, 296, 300.
Recasting, 64, 67, 120, 125, 177-8, 185, 226, 231, 232-3, 239, 241,
257, 284, 330, 355-6, 357.
_Recliner_, 20.
_Record_, adj., 51-2.
_Recrudescence_, 5, 15-6.
_Rectitudinous_, 20.
_Rédaction_, 27.
REDUNDANCIES, 332-3.
_Regard_, 324.
_Regenesis_, 20.
_Régime_, 36.
Relative and participle, 327.
Relative clauses and inversion, 188.
RELATIVE COORDINATION, 85-100.
RELATIVE, MISCELLANEOUS USES AND ABUSES, 96-107.
RELATIVE, OMISSION OF PREPOSITION, 102-3.
RELATIVE OMITTED, 101-2.
RELATIVES, 75-107.
Relatives and punctuation, 78, 242-4.
RELATIVES, CASE, 93-4, 99-100.
RELATIVES DEFINING AND NON-DEFINING, 75-85.
RELATIVES, PARENTHESIS, 94-5.
RELATIVES, SEQUENCE OF, 293-4.
_Reliable_, 42-3.
_Remindful_, 21.
REPETITION, 209-13.
REPETITION, CARELESS, 303-4.
REPETITION, PLAYFUL, 172-3.
_Requisition_, 11.
_Research_, 11.
_Resource_, 13.
_Reverend_, 8.
Rhetoric, 234, 236.
Rhetorical repetition, 209, 213.
RHETORIC AND PUNCTUATION, 220-5.
_Right along_, 25.
ROMANCE WORDS, 1, 3.
Royal pronoun, 178.
_Run the show_, 51.
S
_Said_ with inversion, 192.
_Same, the_, 358.
_Sans_, 27.
_Save_, 2-3, 196.
SAXON WORDS, 1, 2-3, 7.
_Scandalum magnatum_, 34.
_Schadenfreude_, 27-8.
Scott, 174.
_Seasonable_, 43.
Self-consciousness, 351.
Semicolon and independent sentences, 255.
SEMICOLON AND SUBORDINATE CLAUSES, 257-8.
Semicolon, distinct functions of, 222.
Sense and sound, 296.
_Sensibleness_, 44-5.
Sentence, 112, 254-5.
SENTENCE ACCENT, 296-8.
_SHALL_ AND _WILL_, 133-54.
_Shall_, archaic and literary, 137, 153, 194-5.
SHORT AND LONG WORDS, 6-7.
_Shrimp-pink_, 25.
_Sic_, 90, 311.
Signpost connexion, 183, 184.
_Since several days_, 32.
_Skilled_, 17.
SLANG, 47-53.
Slang and idiom, 53.
SLANG, VARIOUS ORIGINS, 49-51.
Slang with quotation marks, 48.
_Slating_, 51.
Smartness, 351.
Smollett, 111.
_So far as, that_, 168-70.
_SOMEWHAT_, &c., 352-5.
_Sordor_, 43.
Sound and sense, 296.
_Soupçon_, 27.
_Special_, 11.
Spencer, 193.
_Spirit of the staircase_, 32.
SPLIT AUXILIARIES, 342-3.
SPLIT INFINITIVE, 319.
SPOT-PLAGUE, 226-31.
_Standpoint_, 25.
_Stands to reason_, 213-4.
_Status quo_, 26.
_Stave off_, 206-7.
_Steep_ (slang), 48.
Sterne, 266.
Stevenson, 198-9.
Stops and tone symbols, 220, 285.
Street names, 276-7.
_Stronger_, adv., 40.
_Stumped_, 51.
STYLE, 348-end.
Styles, various, 7-8.
SUBJECT, &c., and VERB IN PUNCTUATION, 239-42.
Subjunctive, 154, 157-8.
Subjunctive conditionals, 195.
SUBSTANTIVAL CLAUSE IN PUNCTUATION, 235-8, 265.
_Such_, 358-9.
_Such who_, _which_, and _that_, 103-4.
_Summerly_, 20.
SUPERFLUOUS _but_ AND _though_, 334.
SUPERLATIVES, 74-5.
Superlatives, Carlylese, 349.
SUPERLATIVES WITHOUT _the_, 216-17.
_Super-sensitized_, 20.
Superstitions, 62, 99, 245, 266, 273, 319.
_Surprisedly_, 47.
SYNTAX, Cap. II.
T
_Tache_, 28.
_Tackle_, 51.
_Take a back seat_, 51.
_Take it lying down_, 51.
_Take my word for it_, 213.
TAUTOLOGY, 331-2.
Tautology, 56.
_Tear and wear_, 217-8.
_Telegram_, 19, 23.
Tell-tale errors, 21, 53, 56, 235, 254, 261, 308.
_Tête-à-tête_, 26.
Thackeray, 88, 198.
_THAN_, CASE, 62-4.
_Than whom_, 64.
_That_ and _which_, 242-3.
_THAT_ AND _WHICH_ (_WHO_), 80-5.
_THAT_ (CONJUNCTION), OMISSION OF, 356-7.
_THAT_ (RELATIVE) OF PERSONS, 83-4.
_That_ resumptive, 330-1.
_THAT_, SEQUENCE OF, 294-5.
_That’s him_, 60.
_The exception proves_, &c., 306.
_Their_, 67.
_THE MORE_, 70-4.
_The more_, 218.
_Thereanent_, 29, 194.
_Therefore_, 265.
_Thereto_, 196.
_Theretofore_, 196.
_The same_, 358.
_The ... that_ (resolved interrogative), 101.
_Thither_, 5, 196.
_Those interested_, 344-5.
_Those sort_, 331.
_THOUGH_ SUPERFLUOUS, 334.
_Thrasonical_, 50, 52.
_Tinker with_, 164.
_Today_, 280.
_To have ..._, 154-6.
_Tomorrow_, 280.
Tone symbols and stops, 285.
_To the foot of the letter_, 32.
_Transcendentally_, 10-11.
_Translate_, 2.
TRANSLATION OF FOREIGN WORDS, 30-3.
_Transpire_, 4, 16, 24.
TRITE PHRASES, 213-5.
TRITE QUOTATION, 310-1.
_Trow_, 194.
TRUISMS, 339-41.
_Trustedly_, 47.
_Trustfulness_, 9.
TYPES OF HUMOUR, 171-5.
U
_-ude_, 21.
_Unconscious to_, 161.
_Under dog_, 51.
UNDER-STOPPING, 234-5.
UNEQUAL YOKEFELLOWS, &c., 311-14.
_Unique_, 58-9, 339.
_Unquiet_, n., 21.
_Up to date_, 51.
V
Verbal noun, 108.
_Verberant_, 20.
_Vexedly_, 47.
_Vide_, 311.
_Vieille escrime_, 28.
_Vieilles perruques_, 28.
_Vieux jeu_, 28.
_Violence_, 11.
_Vividity_, 46-7.
VOCABULARY, Cap. I.
VOCABULARY, GENERAL RULES, 1-4.
Vocabulary, prose and poetry, 3.
Vulgarism, 103, 118.
VULGARISMS, 331.
W
_Waddle_, 25.
_Walking stick_, 276.
_War-famous_, 20.
WENS AND HYPERTROPHIED MEMBERS, 300-3.
_Were_, 157-8.
_What_, antecedent-relative, 100-1.
_What ever...?_, 331.
_Whatever...?_, 331.
_What_, relative and interrogative, 100-1.
_Whereof_, 196.
_While_ and _as_, clauses, slovenly 189.
_WHILE_, MEANINGLESS, 357-8.
_Whimsical_, 42.
_WHO_ AND _WHOM_, 61.
_Whole-hogging_, 51.
_WILL_ AND _SHALL_, 133-54.
_Will not do this thing_, 214.
_Wind-flower_, 4.
_Wire_, vb., 19.
_With a view to_, 167-8.
_With the view of_, 167, 168.
WORD-FORMATION, 37-47.
_World policy_, 51.
WORN-OUT HUMOROUS PHRASES, 173-5.
_Worthy_, 174, 214.
_Wot_, 194.
_Write you_, 165.
WRONG TURNING, 316.
Y
_Your_ and _yours_, 40-1.
_You shall find_, 194.
Printed in England at the Oxford University Press
Some Oxford Books
on
ENGLISH
¶ _General._
THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH, by W. S. TOMKINSON. Pp. 230. 5s. 6d. net.
‘It is full of good things.’
_Educational Times_
THE RUDIMENTS OF CRITICISM, by E. A. G. LAMBORN. Pp. 192. 3s. 6d. net.
‘A valuable book for teachers, showing how children may be taught to
appreciate poetry and verbal melody.’
_Athenaeum._
EXPRESSION IN SPEECH AND WRITING, by E. A. G. LAMBORN. Pp. 120. 4s. 6d.
net.
‘It is hard to over praise this inspiring little book, written with
all the author’s raciness, humour, and enthusiasm. It deals in five
chapters with oral and written composition, verse making, original
music, and the rendering of poetry.’
_AMA._
¶ _Phonetics._
THE SOUNDS OF ENGLISH, by HENRY SWEET. Pp. 140. 3s 6d. n.
An elementary introduction to Phonetics with particular reference to
Standard English.
A PRIMER OF SPOKEN ENGLISH. Introduction, Analysis, Synthesis, by HENRY
SWEET. 4th edition revised. 1911. Pp. 110. 3s. 6d. net.
PHONETIC TRANSCRIPTIONS OF ENGLISH PROSE, by DANIEL JONES. Pp. 60. 2s.
6d. net.
EXAMINATION PAPERS IN PHONETICS, by DANIEL JONES. Pp. 52. 2s. 6d. net.
Designed to furnish practice for Oxford, Cambridge, and London
Certificates.
¶ _English Grammar, Descriptive._
ELEMENTARY GRAMMAR AND EXERCISE BOOK, by O. W. TANCOCK. Third edition.
Pp. 92. 2s.
AN ENGLISH GRAMMAR AND READING BOOK. For lower forms in Classical
Schools, by O. W. TANCOCK. Pp. 332. 3s. 6d.
ELEMENTARY LESSONS IN ENGLISH GRAMMAR, by H. C. WYLD. Pp. 224. 2s. 6d.
net.
A NEW ENGLISH GRAMMAR based on the recommendations of the Joint
Committee on Grammatical Terminology by E. A. SONNENSCHEIN, with
exercises by E. ARCHIBALD. Part I, 1s. 6d. net; Part II, 2s. net; Part
III, 2s. 6d. net. Also in one volume. Pp. 426. 5s. net.
SENTENCE ANALYSIS for the Lower Forms of Public Schools, by H. W.
FOWLER. Pp. 68. 2s. net.
‘A clear, simple, and exact practical exposition of the subject,
produced in typographical form which leaves nothing to be desired.’
_Pitman’s Journal._
For books marked with a dagger, thus †, teachers’ Keys are available.
Prices and conditions may be had on application to the publisher.
¶ _English Historical Grammar._
A PRIMER OF HISTORICAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR, by HENRY SWEET. Second edition.
Pp. 120. 3s. net.
A SHORT HISTORICAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR, by HENRY SWEET. Corrected
impression. 1924. Pp. 276. 4s. 6d. net.
NEW ENGLISH GRAMMAR: Logical and Historical, in two parts, by HENRY
SWEET.
Part I: Introduction, Phonology, and Accidence. Pp. 524. 10s. 6d. n.
Part II: Syntax. Pp. 148. 5s. net.
A PRIMER OF ENGLISH ETYMOLOGY, by W. W. SKEAT. Sixth edition, revised.
1923. Pp. 120. 2s. 6d. net.
Chapters on the Sources of the Language; the History, Symbols and
Sounds; Modern English Spelling; Words of Native Origin; Vowel Mutation
and Gradation, &c.
STANDARD ENGLISH, by T. NICKLIN. (World’s Manuals.) Pp. 102. 2s. 6d.
net.
‘The author pleads that all children of whatever birth shall be
carefully taught the “standard dialect”--the English, that is to say,
of the educated class, and often hitherto regarded as a prerogative of
that class.’
_Journal of Education._
ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOKEN AND WRITTEN LANGUAGE, by HENRY BRADLEY.
Pp. 36. 2s. net.
An examination of the difficulties of spelling reform.
¶ _Dictionaries._
¶ THE POCKET OXFORD DICTIONARY OF CURRENT ENGLISH, compiled by H. W.
and F. G. FOWLER. Pp. 1016. Cloth, 3s. 6d. net. India Paper, 6s. net.
An authoritative guide to the latest and best English usage. Over 2,000
columns of clear type; yet the volume is small enough to be carried in
the pocket of a traveller or holiday maker.
¶ THE CONCISE OXFORD DICTIONARY, compiled by H. W. and F. G. FOWLER.
Eleventh impression. 1923. Pp. 1076. Cloth, 7s. 6d. net.
‘We strongly recommend every one to secure this Dictionary. Whatever
they may possess this will be a distinct acquisition, and daily use
will make it more and more indispensable.’
_London Quarterly Review._
¶ The _Pocket Oxford Dictionary_ and the _Concise Oxford Dictionary_
are of unrivalled authority because they alone among one-volume
dictionaries are based on the great OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY, edited
by Sir James Murray, Dr. Bradley, Dr. Craigie, and Mr. Onions. Of
this great work Vol. I was published in 1888 after many years of
preparation. Vol. X (the last) is now appearing in sections. The
complete work will contain articles on about 425,000 words and will
extend to over 15,000 large pages, each of three columns. For details
see the General Catalogue.
A CONCISE ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY, by W. W. SKEAT; new and corrected
impression. 1911. Pp. 680. 6s. net; on thin paper, 7s. 6d. net.
¶ _English Composition._
EXERCISES IN PROSE LITERATURE AND COMPOSITION, by G. CLIFFORD DENT. Pp.
300. 4s.
Also separately. Part I (Ages 8-10),Text, 9d., Text and Exercises, 1s.
Part II (Ages 11-14), Text, 1s., Text and Exercises, 1s. 6d. Part III
(Ages 15-18), Text, 1s. 3d., Text and Exercises, 2s.
ENGLISH COMPOSITION, based on the study of literary models, by A.
CRUSE. Pp. 200. 2s. 6d.
CONTENTS:--The History of the Essay, Writing an Essay, Types of Essay,
Style, Letter Writing, Paraphrasing, Verse Writing.
ENGLISH COMPOSITION, Progressive Exercises (A Two-Years’ Course for
upper forms), by C. E. L. HAMMOND. With an introduction by J. C. SMITH.
Pp. 176. 3s. 6d. Also in two parts: Part I, pp. 80. 2s.; Part II, pp.
112, 2s. 6d.
‘These books are truly admirable. We have not seen a more interesting
or more suggestive treatment of English, and we cordially recommend
them to all teachers of English.’
_Scottish Educational Journal._
EXERCISES IN DICTATION AND COMPOSITION, with selected examination
papers and a vocabulary of all difficult words, by N. NOTMAN. Pp. 168.
2s. 6d. net.
Standard of Oxford and Cambridge Locals.
† SHORT ESSAYS FOR FOURTH AND FIFTH FORMS, with specimen analyses, by
S. E. WINBOLT. Pp. 292. 3s. 6d.
THE WRITING OF ENGLISH, by P. J. HARTOG, assisted by Mrs. AMY H.
LANGDON. Third edition. Pp. 176. 4s. net.
The authors explain how it is that French boys write French so well
while English boys write English so indifferently; and apply to
English, with acknowledged practical success, the French method of
teaching the mother tongue.
_By H. W. and F. G. Fowler._
THE KING’S ENGLISH, ABRIDGED for School use. Pp. 160. 3s. net.
‘For the young writer we know of no better work since the appearance of
Hodgson’s _Errors in English_.’
_Literary World._
‘If freely used, it would do much to arrest the degradation of the
English language.’
_The Scotsman._
THE KING’S ENGLISH. Second edition. Pp. 380. 6s. net.
‘To author and journalists _The King’s English_ should be invaluable.’
_The Author._
‘This is the best book of its kind we have ever seen.’
_Glasgow Herald._
¶ _Précis Writing._
† A PROGRESSIVE COURSE OF PRÉCIS WRITING. Part I for beginners, Part
II Official Correspondence, Minutes, &c., pp. 146, graduated, by F. E.
ROBESON. 2s. 6d.
HISTORICAL PASSAGES FOR PRÉCIS WRITING, by F. E. ROBESON. Pp. 118. 2s.
6d.
PRÉCIS WRITING. The two books in one volume. Pp. 264. 4s. 6d.
OXFORD SERIES OF TEXTS OR TRANSLATIONS FOR SCHOOLS
DR. LOWE’S POPULAR READERS, with Notes, Maps, Vocabularies, English
Exercises, and many illustrations. Each book proceeds from simple
sentences to compound sentences; then to short paragraphs; and finally
to a slightly adapted version of the original text. 2s. each.
LINGUA LATINA. The Direct Method. Edited by W. H. D. ROUSE and S.
O. ANDREW. Crown 8vo. Eight text-books, a Teacher’s book, and a
wall-picture.
OXFORD JUNIOR LATIN SERIES. Under the General Editorship of C. E.
FREEMAN. Fcap 8vo. 2s. each. The series includes the following
volumes:--
_Virgil, Aeneid I, II, IV, V, VI, X; Catullus; Horace, Select Odes;
Selections from Ovid; Livy I, XXI, XXII._
THE CLARENDON LATIN AND GREEK SERIES. Partly in the Original and partly
in Translation. Under the general editorship of R. W. LIVINGSTONE. Each
volume with introduction, notes, and vocabulary. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. net
each. The series includes the following Latin volumes:--
_Apuleius, Cupid and Psyche; Caesar, Civil War I-II, III; Caesar,
Gallic War IV (20-38) and V, VI-VII; Cicero the Advocate; The
Catilinarian Conspiracy; Livy, XXI-XXII; Sallust, The Jugurthine War;
Virgil, Aeneid I-III, IV-VI, VII-IX, The Georgics._
OXFORD CLASSICAL TEXTS. Crown 8vo. The series includes the following
Latin volumes:--
_Asconius; Caesar, Commentarii; Catullus; Cicero, Epistulae; Cicero,
Orationes; Cicero, Rhetorica; Horace; Isidori Etymologiae, Livy;
Lucretius; Martial; Nepos; Ovid; Persius and Juvenal; Phaedrus;
Plautus; Propertius; Statius; Tacitus; Terence; Tibullus; Vergil;
Appendix Vergiliana._
OXFORD LIBRARY OF TRANSLATIONS. These Oxford Translations have not
been written to order, but produced for the delight of the writers
themselves by students of their favourite authors. Uniform volumes.
Fcap 8vo. From 5s. net each.
Lists of the above series and of other annotated editions may
be had on application to the
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
Amen House, Warwick Square, E.C. 4
Transcriber’s Notes
Missing and incorrect punctuation marks have been corrected without
note.
Inconsistencies that did not affect understanding were left as per the
original text.
Page 38: “call it _navity_” changed to “call it _naivety_”
Page 213: “aud flourishes in” changed to “and flourishes in”
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE KING'S ENGLISH ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
