Part 14

~wherever~: This word, although a combination of two words “where” and “ever” is not spelt “where ever” when written as a solid word. Then it drops the first “e” in “ever” and is correctly “wherever.”

~whether~: Avoid such a locution as “whether or no,” which is rapidly gaining ground, and say instead the preferable phrase, “whether or not.” _Whether_ properly means “which of two.” Therefore, in expressing doubt, make mention merely of the exact thing doubted without using the word _whether_ unless it be to introduce an alternative subject of doubt or a comparison of doubts. Just as _either_, which is strictly applicable to two only is wrongly applied to more than two, so is _whether_, which is a contraction of _which of either_.

~which~. Compare THAT, WHO.

~who~: Often improperly used for _whom_: a mark of ignorance when so applied. Do not say “_Who_ do you refer to?” but “To _whom_ do you refer?” Not “_Who_ is that for?” nor “Who did you give it to?” but “For _whom_ is that?” “To _whom_ did you give it?” Compare THAT, WHO.

~whole~, ~whole of~: The _whole_ or _whole of_ should be used before a plural noun carefully, and then only when the body is referred to collectively. In general the word _entire_ would better express the phrase. In such cases _all_ should never be employed, as this relates to the individual of which the body is composed. Thus, one may say, “The _whole_ staff accompanied the general,” or (for emphasis) “The _whole of_ the staff,” etc., but it would be better to say “The _entire_ staff.”

If referring to the individual officers, the sentence should read “_All_ members of the staff accompanied the general.”

~whole push, the~. See PUSH.

~widow woman~: A pleonasm. Do not use the word _widow_, which applies only to a woman, with the words _woman_ or _lady_. It is an error of speech, common in rural districts, against which it is wise to continually guard.

~wife~. Compare LADY.

~wild~: A colloquialism for “angry” which is to be preferred.

~windbag~: A coarse term for a boastful and wordy talker: not used by persons who cultivate a refined diction. “Braggart,” “braggadocia,” are more elegant, yet equally expressive terms.

~with~, ~and~: A nominative singular is sometimes used with an objective after _with_ to form, jointly, the subject of a plural verb; as “The captain _with_ all his crew _were_ drowned.” But according to best usage the conjunction _and_ is substituted for “with”; thus, “The captain _and_ all his crew _were_ drowned.” Where the objective is separated parenthetically by commas, a verb in the singular is used; as, “Aguinaldo, with all his followers, _was_ captured by Gen. Funston.”

~without~: This, as used for “except” or “unless” is at the present day a vulgarism. “_Without_ you intend business, do not call”; say, _unless_.

~witness~. Compare SEE.

~woman~. Compare LADY.

~worse~: An adverb sometimes used for _more_; as, “He disliked tea _worse_ than coffee”: a vulgarism.

~worst kind~: For _much_ or _extremely_; as, “I need (or want) a new pen the _worst kind_”: a vulgarism, besides equivocally suggesting “the worst kind of a pen.”

~would better~. Compare HAD BETTER.

~would say~: A hackneyed expression used by many commercial correspondents; inelegant and useless.

~would seem~ should not be used for “seems.”

~wrath~. Compare TEMPER.

~write you~: This expression, for “write to you,” though common, is not grammatically correct. Where an object is expressed the dative “to” may be omitted. “He shipped _me_ costly fabrics,” for “he shipped costly fabrics to _me_” is permissible, but “he shipped _me_” without any objective, or rather other objective of _me_ would imply that the person speaking had been shipped. Of the expression “I will write you,” the only justification for it that can be found is in the supposition that the words “a letter” are understood.

Y

~yappy~: A slang term used as an equivalent of “foolish” which is to be preferred.

~yes~: Discard such vulgarisms as _yeh_ and _yep_ and pronounce as a single syllable, and not with affectation, as, sometimes in England _ya-as_, or with a Yankee drawl _ye-es_. Avoid, too, the objectionable habit of using this word as the sole response in conversation; a habit which is indeed fatally destructive of conversation, which should partake more or less of an interchange of ideas. “Yes! she would reply encouragingly ... and yes! conclusively, like an incarnation of stupidity dealing in monosyllables.” (MEREDITH, “Beauchamp’s Career,” vol. iii. ch. 10, p. 185.) Also, when speaking in English do not inject the German “Ja!” when you wish to signify assent. This practice is rapidly gaining ground among the middle class.

~Yid~: A Jew: an appellation common among the vulgar and therefore one to be avoided.

~you~ even when used in relation to one person, is still grammatically plural, always requiring the plural verb; as, “You _were_ fortunate,” not “You _was_ fortunate”; “If you _were_ to curse you would sin,” not “If you _was_ to curse,” etc.

~you and I~, ~you or I~: Phrases in which the objective pronoun _me_ and the first personal pronoun _I_ are often confused; as, “This will not do for _you and I_,” instead of “This will not do for _you and me_.’” The rule is very simple, viz.: use _I_ or _me_ in such connection just as if the words “you and” or “you or” were omitted. “They were not citizens as (_you and_) _I_”; “He is not so tall as (_you or_) _I_.”

~you don’t say?~ Compare IS THAT SO?

~your’s truly~: An incorrect form, _yours_ being a possessive pronoun does not need the sign of the possessive after it.

Z

~zeugma~: “Is the joining of two or more words (as nouns) to a third (as a verb) with which only one or a part of them can be made to agree except by using the nouns in different senses, or by taking the verb in different senses in relation to the different nouns, or by letting the underlying logical relation overrule the grammatical--in Greek a very common figure, but in English quite unusual and ordinarily a violation of the principles of construction and a grave fault in diction. “The _control_, as well as the _support_, which a father _exercises_ over his family _were_, by the dispensation of Providence, withdrawn”; _control_ is properly _exercised_, but _support_ is not; the verb-form _were_ is made plural to accord, not with the grammatical relation of _control_ and _support_, but with the logical relation underlying _as well_ as regarded as equivalent to _and_.”--STANDARD DICTIONARY. Compare WITH, AND.

Transcriber's Note

The following apparent errors have been corrected:

p. 7 "bargain." changed to "bargain.”"

p. 17 "I have" changed to "“I have"

p. 21 "Polly." changed to "Polly.”"

p. 43 "·COLERIDGE" changed to "--COLERIDGE"

p. 44 "“steal" changed to "“steal”"

p. 70 "_the other_" changed to "_the other_”"

p. 82 "severly" changed to "severely"

p. 90 "_from the effects of_" changed to "“_from the effects of_"

p. 94 "LADY" changed to "LADY."

p. 106 "last month; say" changed to "last month”; say"

p. 109 "vulger" changed to "vulgar"

p. 111 "_had that_" changed to "_how that_"

p. 113 "~if~. ~whether~" changed to "~if~, ~whether~"

p. 125 "beat.”" changed to "“beat.”"

p. 142 "_Mussulman_" changed to "_Mussulman_."

p. 143 "Macaulay" changed to "Macaulay."

p. 154 "have seen;" changed to "have seen”;"

p. 165 "intensely comic” or “absurd.’”" changed to "“intensely comic” or “absurd.”"

p. 173 "The perference" changed to "The preference"

p. 187 "_converse_" changed to "_converse_."

p. 187 "_Rev._ Jones,”" changed to "“_Rev._ Jones,”"

p. 191 "_Jesus_" changed to "_Jesus’_"

p. 205 "rather." changed to "rather,"

p. 227 "surprise" changed to "surprise."

p. 232 "WITH AND" changed to "WITH, AND"

The following possible errors have been left as printed:

p. ix Vesilius

On p. 108, the entry for "hen-party" refers to a non-existent entry for "stag-party".

p. 126 a object

The following are used inconsistently in the text:

matinée and matinée

slipshod and slip-shod