Part 16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THENCE. See WHENCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRUSTWORTHY. See RELIABLE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VICE. See CRIME.

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

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

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

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

WHARF. See DOCK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolve _who_ into a personal or demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles, _who_ (_for he_, _seeing that he_) knows nothing of the matter?'

"_Who_ may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with _whom_. For many good writers and speakers say '_who_ are you talking of?' '_who_ does the garden belong to?' '_who_ is this for?' '_who_ from?'" etc.

If this be true--if _who may_ be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with _whom_--then, of course, such expressions as "_Who_ did you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ were you with?" "_Who_ will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one will dispute; but that they are _correct_, few grammarians will concede. See THAT.

WHOLE. This word is sometimes most improperly used for _all_; thus, "The _whole_ Germans seem to be saturated with the belief that they are really the greatest people on earth, and that they would be universally recognized as being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest." "The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is to conquer the world."--Alison.

WHOLESOME. See HEALTHY.