Part 17

WHOSE. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of _whose_ as the possessive of _which_. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, use _of which_ instead of _whose_." The correctness of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the possessive case of _which_ that in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to _of which_. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive of _who_ is properly _whose_. The pronoun _which_, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This was supplied, in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the possessive of _who_, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, _whose_ end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, _the_ end _of which_ is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use."

Professor Bain says: "_Whose_, although the possessive of _who_, and practically of _which_, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those faults _whose_ deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is better than 'the deformity _of which_ we have seen.' 'Propositions of _whose_ truth we have no certain knowledge.'--Locke." Dr. Fitzedward Hall says that the use of _whose_ for _of which_, where the antecedent is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high authority for several hundred years.

WIDOW WOMAN. Since widows are always women, why say a widow _woman_? It would be perfectly correct to say a _widowed_ woman.

WIDOWHOOD. There is good authority for using this word in speaking of men as well as of women.

WITHOUT. This word is often improperly used instead of _unless_; as, "You will never live to my age _without_ you keep yourself in breath and exercise"; "I shall not go _without_ my father consents": properly, _unless_ my father consents, or, _without_ my father's consent.

WORST. We should say _at the worst_, not _at worst_.

WOVE. The past participle of the verb _to weave_ is _woven_. "Where was this cloth _woven_?" not _wove_.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN. See MISTAKEN.

YOU WAS. Good usage does, and it is to be hoped always will, consider _you was_ a gross vulgarism, certain grammarians to the contrary notwithstanding. _You_ is the form of the pronoun in the second person plural, and must, if we would speak correctly, be used with the corresponding form of the verb. The argument that we use _you_ in the singular number is so nonsensical that it does not merit a moment's consideration. It is a custom we have--and have in common with other peoples--to speak to one another in the second person plural, and that is all there is of it. The Germans speak to one another in the _third_ person plural. The exact equivalent in German of our _How are you?_ is, _How are they?_ Those who would say _you was_ should be consistent, and in like manner say _you has_ and _you does_.

YOURS, &C. The ignorant and obtuse not unfrequently profess themselves at the bottom of their letters "Yours, &c." And so forth! forth what? Few vulgarisms are equally offensive, and none could be more so. In printing correspondence, the newspapers often content themselves with this short-hand way of intimating that the writer's name was preceded by some one of the familiar forms of ending letters; this an occasional dunderhead seems to think is sufficient authority for writing himself, _Yours, &c._

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] If this is true in England, it is not true in America. Nowhere in the United States is such "questionable grammar" as this frequently heard in cultivated circles.

[2] "It may be confidently affirmed that with good speakers, in the case of negation, _not me_ is the usual practice."--Bain. This, I confidently affirm, is not true in America.--A. A.

[3] Should be, _a text-book for his course_, and not, _for his course a text-book_.

[4] Mr. Gould criticises the Dean's _diction_, not his _style_.

[5] Better, "to revise it."

[6] "Is _to put them_ in tabular form."

[7] Bullions' "Grammar" was published in 1867.

[8] "L. W. K., CLK., LL. D., EX. SCH., T. C., D. Of this reverend gentleman's personality I know nothing. He does not say exactly what he means; but what he means is, yet, unmistakable. The extract given above is from 'Public Opinion,' January 20, 1866."

[9] "The analysis, taken for granted in this quotation, of 'are being thrown up' into 'are being' and 'thrown up' will be dealt with in the sequel, and shown to be untenable."

[10] "Vol. xlv, p. 504 (1837)."

[11] "'The Life and Correspondence of the late Robert Southey,' vol. i, p. 249."

[12] "Vol. i, p. 338. 'A student who _is being crammed_'; 'that verb is eternally _being declined_.'--'The Doctor,' pp. 38 and 40 (mono-tome ed.)."

[13] "In 'Put Yourself in his Place,' chapter x, he writes: 'She basked in the present delight, and looked as if she _was being taken_ to heaven by an angel.'"

[14] "'Words,' etc., p. 340."

[15] "Thomas Fuller writes: 'At his arrival, the last stake of the Christians was _on losing_.'--'The Historie of the Holy Warre,' p. 218 (ed. 1647)."

[16] "I express myself in this manner because I distinguish between _be_ and _exist_."

[17] "Samuel Richardson writes: 'Jenny, who attends me here, has more than once hinted to me that Miss Jervis loves to sit up late, either reading or _being read to_ by Anne, who, though she reads well, is not fond of the task.'--'Sir Charles Grandison,' vol. iii, p. 46 (ed. 1754).

"The transition is very slight by which we pass from 'sits being read to' to 'is being read to.'"

[18] "I am here indebted to the last edition of Dr. Worcester's 'Dictionary,' preface, p. xxxix."

[19] "'Words and their Uses,' p. 353."

[20] "'_It is being_ is simply equal to _it is_. And, in the supposed corresponding Latin phrases, _ens factus est_, _ens ædificatus est_ (the obsoleteness of _ens_ as a participle being granted), the monstrosity is not in the use of _ens_ with _factus_, but in that of _ens_ with _est_. The absurdity is, in Latin, just what it is in English, the use of _is_ with _being_, the making of the verb _to be_ a complement to itself.'--_Ibid._, pp. 354, 355.

"Apparently, Mr. White recognizes no more difference between _supplement_ and _complement_ than he recognizes between _be_ and _exist_. See the extract I have made above, from p. 353."

[21] "'But those things which, _being not now doing_, or having not yet been done, have a natural aptitude to exist hereafter, may be properly said to appertain to the future.'--Harris's 'Hermes,' book I, chap. viii (p. 155, foot-note, ed. 1771). For Harris's _being not now doing_, which is to translate μὴ γινόμενα, the modern school, if they pursued uniformity with more of fidelity than of taste, would have to put _being not now being done_. There is not much to choose between the two."

[22] "'Words and their Uses,' p. 343."

[23] The possessive construction here is, in my judgment, not imperatively demanded. There is certainly no lack of authority for putting the three substantives in the accusative. The possessive construction seems to me, however, to be preferable.

[24] "The use of the plural for the singular was established as early the beginning of the fourteenth century."--Morris, p. 118, § 153.

[25] "Some writers omit the comma in cases where the conjunction is used. But, as the conjunction is generally employed in such cases for emphasis, commas ought to be used; although, where the words are very closely connected, or where they constitute a clause in the midst of a long sentence, they may be omitted."--Bigelow's "Handbook of Punctuation."

[26] "This usage violates one of the fundamental principles of punctuation; it indicates, very improperly, that the noun _man_ is more closely connected with _learned_ than with the other adjectives. Analogy and perspicuity require a comma after _learned_."--Quackenbos.

[27] Many writers would omit the last two commas in this sentence.

[28] The commas before and after _particularly_ are hardly necessary.

[29] The only exception to this rule is the occasional use of the colon to separate two short sentences that are closely connected.

[30] "Dr. Angus on the 'English Tongue,' art. 527."

[31] "In the following passages, the indicative mood would be more suitable than the subjunctive: 'If thou _be_ the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread'; 'if thou _be_ the Son of God, come down from the cross.' For, although the address was not sincere on the part of the speakers, they really meant to make the supposition or to grant that he was the Son of God; 'seeing that thou _art_ the Son of God.' Likewise in the following: 'Now if Christ _be_ preached, that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection from the dead?' The meaning is, 'Seeing now that Christ _is_ preached.' In the continuation, the conditional clauses are of a different character, and 'be' is appropriate: 'But if there _be_ no resurrection from the dead, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ _be_ not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.' Again, 'If thou _bring_ thy gift to the altar, and there remember_est_,' etc. Consistency and correctness require 'remember.'"--Harrison on the "English Language," p. 287.

[32] "So, in German, _wäre_ for _würde sein_. 'Hätt' ich Schwingen, hätt' ich Flügel, nach den Hügeln _zög_' ich hin,' for '_würde_ ich _ziehen_.'"

[33] "So, in German, _hätte_ occurs for _würde haben_. 'Wäre er da gewesen, so _hätten_ wir ihn gesehen,' for 'so _würden_ wir ihn gesehen _haben_.' _Hätten_ is still conditional, not indicative. In Latin, the pluperfect _indicative_ is occasionally used; which is explained as a more vivid form."

[34] "In _principal_ clauses the inflection of the second person is always retained: 'thou had_st_,' 'thou would_st_, should_st_,' etc. In the example, the subordinate clause, although subjunctive, shows, 'had_st_.' And this usage is exceedingly common."

[35] To those who are not quite clear as to what transcendentalism is, the following lucid definition will be welcome: "It is the spiritual cognoscence of psychological irrefragability connected with concutient ademption of incolumnient spirituality and etherealized contention of subsultory concretion." Translated by a New York lawyer, it stands thus: "Transcendentalism is two holes in a sand-bank: a storm washes away the sand-bank without disturbing the holes."

[36] "Cromwell--_than he_ no man was more skilled in artifice; or, Cromwell--no man was more skilled in artifice _than he_ (was)."

[37] "No devil sat higher than _he_ sat, except Satan."

[38] "Speaking of Dryden, Hallam says, 'His "Essay on Dramatic Poesy," published in 1668, was reprinted sixteen years afterward, and it is curious to observe the changes which Dryden made in the expression. Malone has carefully noted all these; they show both the care the author took with his own style, and the change which was gradually working in the English language. The Anglicism of terminating the sentence with a preposition is rejected. Thus, "I can not think so contemptibly of the age I live in," is exchanged for "the age in which I live." "A deeper expression of belief than all the actor can persuade us to," is altered, "can insinuate into us." And, though the old form continued in use long after the time of Dryden, it has of late years been reckoned inelegant, and proscribed in all cases, perhaps with an unnecessary fastidiousness, to which I have not uniformly deferred, since our language is of Teutonic structure, and the rules of Latin and French grammar are not always to bind us.'

"The following examples, taken from Massinger's 'Grand Duke of Florence,' will show what was the usage of the Elizabethan writers:--

"'For I must use the freedom I _was born with_.'

"'In that dumb rhetoric _which_ you _make use of_.'

"'---- if I had been heir Of all the globes and sceptres mankind _bows to_.'

"'---- the name of friend _Which_ you are pleased to _grace me with_.'

"'---- wilfully ignorant in my opinion Of what it did _invite him to_.'

"'I look to her as on a princess _I dare not be ambitious of_.'

"'---- a duty _That I was born with_.'"

THE ORTHOËPIST:

_A PRONOUNCING MANUAL_,

CONTAINING ABOUT THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED WORDS, INCLUDING A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF THE NAMES OF FOREIGN AUTHORS, ARTISTS, ETC., THAT ARE OFTEN MISPRONOUNCED.

By ALFRED AYRES.

̤ SELECTIONS FROM THE WORK.

ạb-dō´mẹn, _not_ ăb´dọ-mĕn.

ạc-crṳe´, _not_ -crū´. The orthoëpists agree that _u_, preceded by _r_ in the same syllable, generally becomes simply _oo_, as in _rude_, _rumor_, _rural_, _rule_, _ruby_.

ạl-lŏp´ạ-thy; ạl-lŏp´ạ-thĭst.

Ăr´ạ-bĭc, _not_ Ạ-rā´bĭc.

Asia--ā´shẹ-ȧ, _not_ ā´zhȧ.

ay, _or_ aye (meaning _yes_)--ī.

aye (meaning _always_)--ā.

Bĭs´märck, _not_ bĭz´-. At the end of a syllable, _s_, in German, has invariably its sharp, hissing sound.

Cairo--in Egypt, kī´rō; in the United States, kā´rō.

Courbet--ko̤r´bā´.

dĕc´ạde, _not_ dẹ-kād´.

dẹ-cō´roŭs. The authority is small, and is becoming less, for saying _dĕc´o-roŭs_, which is really as incorrect as it would be to say _sŏn´o-roŭs_.

dĕf´ị-cĭt, _not_ dẹ-fĭç´it.

dịs̱-dāin´, _not_ dis-.

dịs̱-hŏn´or, _not_ dis-.

ĕc-ọ-nŏm´ị-cạl, _or_ ē-cọ-nŏm´ị-cạl. The first is the marking of a large majority of the orthoëpists.

ẹ-nēr´vāte. The only authority for saying _ĕn´er-vāte_ is popular usage; all the orthoëpists say _e-nẽr´vāte_.

ĕp´ọc̵h, _not_ ē´pŏc̵h. The latter is a Websterian pronunciation, which is not even permitted in the late editions.

fĭn-ạn-ciēr´. This much-used word is rarely pronounced correctly.

Heī´nẹ, _not_ hine. Final _e_ in German is never silent.

honest--ŏn´est, _not_ -ĭst, _nor_ -ŭst. "Hon_est_, hon_est_ Iago," is preferable to "hon_ust_, hon_ust_ Iago," some of our accidental Othellos to the contrary notwithstanding.

ĭs̱´ọ-lāte, _or_ ĭs´ọ-late, _not_ ī´sọ-lāt. The first marking is Walker's, Worcester's, and Smart's; the second, Webster's.

ONE VOL., 18MO, CLOTH. PRICE, $1.00.

New York: D. APPLETON & CO., 1, 3, & 5 Bond Street.