Part 1

Transcriber's Note

Bold text is indicated by ~swung dashes~, and italic text by _underscores_.

_STANDARD DESK-BOOK SERIES_

A Desk-Book of

Errors in English

Including Notes on Colloquialisms and Slang to be Avoided in Conversation

By FRANK H. VIZETELLY, Litt.D., LL.D.

_Managing Editor of “Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language”; Author of “Essentials of English Speech and Literature,” Etc._

_A REVISED EDITION_

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY

NEW YORK and LONDON

Copyright, 1906 and 1920, by FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY

[_Printed in the United States of America_]

Copyright Under the Articles of the Copyright Convention of the Pan-American Republics and the United States, August 11, 1910

Published January 1, 1920

All Rights Reserved

PREFACE

The fact that this little book has passed through many editions, and now enters on a new one in revised form, is ample answer to its writer’s prayer when, with the aid of his Publishers, he launched it on an uncertain voyage over the seas of time--

“Go, little book, God send thee good passage, And specially let this be thy prayer: Unto them all that thee will read or hear, Where thou art wrong, after their help to call, Thee to correct in any part or all.”

(_Chaucer._)

It is with sincere gratitude to the Publishers that the author acknowledges the results achieved to have been due wholly to their kindly interest and indefatigable efforts. He ventures to hope that this new edition, and such subsequent editions as time may require, will be found to measure fully up to the expectations of the discriminating Public on which it depends for support.

F. H. V.

NEW YORK, _January, 1920_.

INTRODUCTORY

In these days when the vernacular of the street invades the home; when illiterate communications corrupt good grammar; and when the efforts of the teachers in the public schools are rendered ineffective by parents careless of their diction, constant attempts are being made to point out the way to that “Well of English undefiled” so dear to the heart of the purist. But, notwithstanding these efforts to correct careless diction, the abuse and misuse of words continue. The one besetting sin of the English-speaking people is a tendency to use colloquial inelegancies, slang, and vulgarisms, and against these, as against the illiteracies of the street, it is our duty to guard, nowadays more so than at any other time, since what is learnt in the schoolroom is soon forgotten or displaced by association with illiterate playfellows, or by occasionally hearing words misused at home.

Of the purely syntactical side of the English language, no less a master of its intricacies and niceties than Thomas Jefferson has said “I am not a friend to a scrupulous purism of style; I readily sacrifice the niceties of syntax to euphony and strength. It is by boldly neglecting the rigorisms of grammar that Tacitus has made himself the strongest writer in the world. The hyperesthetics call him barbarous; but I should be sorry to exchange his barbarisms for their wiredrawn purisms. Some of his sentences are as strong as language can make them. Had he scrupulously filled up the whole of their syntax, they would have been merely common. To explain my meaning by an English example, I will quote the motto of one, I believe, of the regicides, of Charles I., ‘Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.’ Correct its syntax ‘Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.’ It has lost all the strength and beauty of the antithesis.” And Jefferson continued: “Where strictness of grammar does not weaken expression, it should be attended to. But where, by small grammatical negligences, the energy of an idea is condensed, or a word stands for a sentence, I hold grammatical rigor in contempt.”

The English language is the most flexible language in the world. Indeed, it is so flexible that some of its idioms are positively startling. Could any phrase be more so than “I don’t think it will rain”?--Simple enough as an idiom but positively absurd when analyzed. We say “_I don’t think_ it will rain” when we mean “I do think it will not rain.” Again, we say “All over the world” when we should say “Over all the world,” and “the reason why” instead of “the reason that.” Usage has made our language what it is; grammatical rules strive to limit it to what it ought to be. In many instances usage has supplanted grammatical rules. Hundreds of words have been used by masters of English in ways that violate these rules. These uses are to be found to-day recorded by the dictionaries because lexicographers recognize it is their duty to present the language as they find it used by the people. It is to the people, not to the purists, that one must look for the enriching of our mother tongue. To them it is as impossible to confine the English language within the bonds of grammatical rules as it is to stem the tide of the sea. For them all matters that relate to English speech can be decided only by the law of good usage. This, and this alone is their Court of Last Resort. Withal, the observance of certain conventional rules does no harm if it helps him who speaks carelessly to produce a refined style of diction and writing, or if it teaches him who does not know, what to say and how to say it.

The secret of strength in speech and writing lies in the art of using the right word in the right place; therefore, careful speakers and writers should aim to command not only a large vocabulary but a wide and correct knowledge of the meanings of words. These can be most readily acquired by noting the meaning of every new word across which one may come in reading, and by constantly consulting a dictionary, preferably one which compares or contrasts words in such a manner as to bring out clearly the finer and nicer distinctions in their meanings--such distinctions as are necessary to the student to put him into possession of the essential differences of the words compared. Learn the meaning of words and your tongue will never slip. As Southey has said, “the greatest wisdom of speech is to know when, and what, and where to speak; the time, matter, and manner.”

The best asset in life is knowledge. Knowledge well-grounded may be secured by the systematic study of words. The desirability of exercising great care not only in the selection of words, but in marshaling them in their correct order must be apparent to any one familiar with some of the errors committed by writers who, notwithstanding the blunders they have made, have acquired reputation as authors of good English. Dr. Samuel Johnson, in his “Lives of the Poets,” is responsible for the following statement: “Shakespeare has not only shown human nature as it is, _but as it would be found in situations to which it cannot be exposed_”--a statement the absurdity of which can not fail to impress the reader.

In the King James Version of the Bible, quoted by some authorities as a standard of pure English, one may find the following, which occurs in Isaiah xxxvii. 36: “Then the angel of the Lord went forth and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand; _and when they arose_ early in the morning, behold _they were all dead corpses_.” It can hardly be supposed that the translators meant to imply that the corpses arose early in the morning and found themselves dead. In the second act of “Julius Cæsar,” Shakespeare puts into the mouth of _Ligarius_ the following: “I will strive with things impossible; yea, get the better of them.” For power of perseverance _Ligarius_ is to be commended. Hallam, author of the “Literature of Europe,” declared that “No one as yet had exhibited the structure of the human kidneys, Vesilius having only examined them in dogs”--a declaration which implies that the dog must have bolted them whole. The London _Times_ has occasionally perpetrated absurdities which equal, if they do not surpass, these. In an obituary announcing the death of Baron Dowse it said, “A great Irishman has passed away. God grant that many as great, and who shall as wisely love their country, may follow him.” Here the intended wish is not that many great Irishmen may die but that there may be many to follow him who shall love their country as well as he did. An equally absurd example taken from an issue of the _Freeman’s Journal_ of the year 1890, announces “The health of Mr. Parnell has lately taken a very serious turn, and _fears of his recovery_ are entertained by his friends,” which, one may add, was rather unfriendly on their part. Isaac Disraeli in his “Curiosities of Literature” himself was guilty of an absurdity when he wrote, “It is curious to observe the various substitutes for paper _before its invention_.”

Errors of a different sort found their way even into our earlier dictionaries. Cockeram defined a lynx as “a spotted beast which hath the most perfect sight in so much as it is said that it can see through a wall.” The salamander he described as “a small venomous beast with foure feet and a short taile; it lives in the fire, and at length by its extreme cold puts out the fire.” Both of these definitions show the rudimentary stage of the knowledge of our forefathers in matters zoological.

Of slang no less eminent a writer of English than Richard Grant White has said, “Slang is a vocabulary of genuine words or unmeaning jargon, used always with an arbitrary and conventional signification,” and because “it is mostly coarse, low, and foolish,” certain slang terms and phrases have been included in the following pages, together with a few undesirable colloquialisms. These are included because the indiscriminate use of slang leads to slovenliness in speech. Not all slang is slovenly, incorrect, or vicious; much of it is virile, expressive, and picturesque. It is against the spread of that part of slang which is slovenly, incorrect, foolish, or vicious, that one should guard.

The purpose of these pages is not to dictate a precise course to be followed, nor to lay down rules that will prevent any speaker or writer from exercising his privilege as an individual of speaking or writing freely and independently the thoughts that are uppermost in his mind. It is, rather, to point out common errors which he may unconsciously commit, and to help him to avoid them and the vulgarisms of the street which have crept into the language, as well as those absurd blunders that have been recorded as the unconscious acts of persons qualified in other respects to rank as masters of English. To this end, and to this end only, the following vocabulary of errors in English has been compiled.

Thanks are due to the Funk & Wagnalls Company for permission to cite freely from the “Standard Dictionary of the English Language” in the following pages.

Mend your speech a little, Lest it may mar your fortunes.

--SHAKESPEARE, _King Lear_, Act i, Sc. 1.

A DESK-BOOK OF

ERRORS IN ENGLISH

A

~a~, ~an~: Before an aspirated “h,” as in “Hibernianism,” the article “a” should be used. “A” is used when the next word begins with a consonant sound; “an” when it begins with a vowel or silent “h.” Though never so feebly aspirated, “h” has something of a consonant sound, and the article in this case ought to conform to the general principle, as in “_a_ historic introduction has generally _a_ happy effect to arouse attention.” To be correct one should say: _an_ island, _a_ Highlander; _an_ oysterman, _a_ hoister; _a_ hotel, _an_ onion; _a_ herb, _an_ heir; _a_ house, _an_ owl. Some persons do not aspirate the “h” in “herb”; when the “h” is not aspirated, the word takes the article “an,” not “a.”

~abandon~, ~forsake~, ~desert~: To _abandon_ is to give up entirely, as home and friends, and implies previous association with responsibility for or control; to _forsake_ is to leave or withdraw from a person or place, and suggests previous association with inclination or attachment. _Abandon_ and _forsake_ may be used in a favorable or unfavorable sense. _Desert_ is to leave permanently and especially without regard for the person or thing deserted; it is used only in an unfavorable sense and usually implies a breach of duty.

Some writers assert that _desert_ is used only “of causes or persons but not of things.” This is erroneous. There is ample evidence of its correct application to things; as the soldier _deserts_ his colors; the sailor _deserts_ his ship.

~abbreviate~, ~abridge~: Discriminate carefully between these words. To _abbreviate_ is to shorten a word so that a part stands for the whole; to _abridge_ is to condense or epitomize, as a report, in such manner that the spirit of the original is retained though it is expressed in fewer words.

~ability~, ~capacity~: These words are not exactly synonymous in meaning when used in the singular. _Ability_ is bodily or mental power; _capacity_ is receptive or containing power. _Ability_ when used in the plural embraces both meanings.

~about~. Compare ALMOST.

~above~: Inelegantly used as a noun by ellipsis of some noun as “He wrote the _above_,” for “the _above phrase_.” A more objectionable use is as an adjective; as, “I submit the _above_ facts” for “I submit the _above_-mentioned facts.” The use of the word “foregoing” or the more legal expression “before-mentioned” would better meet the case. Lamb, always inclined to be humorous, ridicules the expression by referring to “the _above_ boys and the below boys.”

~above~ should not be used for “more than.”

~acceptance~, ~acceptation~: Terms sometimes used interchangeably but incorrectly so. “Acceptance” is the state of being accepted; as the _acceptance_ of a position or office; _acceptation_ is the favorable admission of or acquiescence in a matter, or assent to a belief.

~accept of~: A visitor does not _accept of_ the hospitality of his host, but _accepts_ his hospitality. In this phrase “of” is redundant.

~accident~, ~injury~: These words are used sometimes incorrectly. An “accident” is that which happens without known or assignable cause or without deliberate intention; an “injury” is a hurt that causes physical or mental pain resulting, as from an accident. An accident may be injurious, and injuries painful; but accidents should never be spoken of as painful.

~accord~ should not be used for _give_. To _accord_ is “to render or concede as due and proper, as honor or veneration;” to _give_ is “to bestow as appropriate; as to _give_ thanks, praise, or welcome.”

~accord~, ~award~: The first of these words implies a spontaneous bestowal prompted by the dictates of the heart (Latin _cor_, _cord_-, heart); the concession or grant due to inherent merit that cannot be denied. _Award_ is colder and more unimpassioned and formal, and implies a grant only after careful observation and judgment. You _accord_ honor where honor is individually due, but _award_ a medal to a victor out of many (actual or possible) contestants.

~accord~, ~grant~: Privileges may be either _accorded_ or _granted_. To _accord_ is to concede as due and proper; grant; bestow; allow; to _grant_ is to bestow or confer; give, as a concession; allow. Some writers erroneously restrict the meaning of _accord_ to “agree with; suit.”

~acknowledgment~: Do not spell this word _acknowledgement_; preferably it is _acknowledgment_--omit “e” after the “g.”

~acme~. Compare CLIMAX.

~acoustic~ (_a._), ~acoustics~ (_n._): When the adjective is used the verb must agree in number with the noun which the adjective qualifies; as, “the _acoustic_ properties of this theater _are_ good.” But the noun though plural in form is singular in construction and always takes a verb in the singular as, “acoustics _is_ a branch of physics.”

~acquaintance~. Compare FRIEND.

~acquiesce~: Never use the preposition “with” after this word. You acquiesce _in_ an arrangement.

~act~, ~action~: Do not use one word for the other. A man does a good _act_ rather than a good _action_. An _act_ is accomplished by an exercise of power, whereas an _action_ is the fact of exerting such power and refers to the _modus operandi_. A party to a conveyance signifies his exercise of power by the formula “This is my _act_ and deed,” but the course pursued, the procedure--the fact of sale and purchase--may be referred to as a _wise action_.

~adherence~, ~adhesion~, ~attachment~: These terms are no longer synonymous, although originally so. _Adherence_ is used of things mental or spiritual, as principles, while _adhesion_ is applied to material things. The figurative meaning of _adhere_ appears in _adherence_, which is somewhat synonymous with _attachment_ and applies to mental conditions or principles. _Adhesion_ is generally reserved for physical attachment; as, “an _adhesion_ effected by glue,” although Dowden in his “Studies in Literature” (p. 230,) has written “Browning’s courageous _adhesion_ to truth never deserts him.” Far better is Johnson’s “Shakespeare’s _adherence_ to general nature has exposed him to the censure of critics, who form their judgments upon narrower principles.”

~adjective~ and ~adverb~: In selecting the correct word to use, bear in mind that where a phrase denoting manner can be substituted an adverb is required; where some tense of the verb _to be_ can be used the adjective is necessary; as, “The surgeon felt the limb _carefully_ and found that one of the bones was _broken_.”

~admission~. Compare ADMITTANCE.

~admit~, ~admit of~: Very different in meaning. “This gate _admits_ (affords entrance) to the grounds, but the size of the vehicle will not _admit of_ (allow or permit) its passing through.” Where Emerson says “Every action _admits of_ being outdone,” the simple _admit_ could not be substituted.

~admittance~, ~admission~: These words are not merely synonymous. _Admittance_ refers to place, _admission_ refers also to position, privilege, favor, friendship, etc. An intruder may gain _admittance_ to the hall of a society who would not be allowed _admission_ to its membership.

~adore~: Often misused as an emphatic for “like.” One may _adore_ that which one reveres or venerates or has profound regard or affection for, but not that which is pleasant to the palate. A child may _like_ cherries and _adore_ its mother, but it does not _adore_ cherries though it _likes_ its mother.

~advantage~, ~benefit~: Exercise care in using these words. _Advantage_ is that which gives one a vantage-ground, either for coping with competitors or with difficulties, needs, or demands; as, “to have the _advantage_ of a good education.” It is frequently used of what one has beyond another or secures at the expense of another; as, “to have the _advantage_ of another in an argument,” or “to take _advantage_ of another in a bargain.” _Benefit_ is anything that does one good.

~adverbs and the infinitive “to.”~ See SPLIT INFINITIVE.

~a few~. Condemned as employing the singular article before an adjective plural in sense. Usage sanctions _a hundred_ and _a_ great _many_, these expressions being viewed as collective. _A few_ is correct idiomatic English, with a sense distinctively different from that of the adjective used alone; as, “_A few_ men can be trusted” (_i. e._, a small but appreciable number). “_Few_ men can be trusted” (_i. e._, scarcely any) is practically equivalent to the negative statement “_Most_ men are _not_ to be trusted.”

~affect~. Compare EFFECT.

~against~: Never shorten this preposition into _again_. Such a usage is either dialectical or obsolete; and save in such usage there is no preposition _again_, or as sometimes spoken by persons careless with their speech _agen_.

~aggravate~, ~exasperate~, ~irritate~, ~provoke~: A fever or a misfortune may be _aggravated_, but not a person. The person is, perhaps, _exasperated_ or _provoked_. To _aggravate_, from the Latin _aggravo_ “to make heavy,” is to intensify, and applies only to conditions of fact; _provoke_, which calls forth anger, and _exasperate_, which heightens (or roughens) anger already provoked, allude to mental states. A patient may be so _irritated_ that his condition is _aggravated_. Here to _aggravate_ is to make worse; to _irritate_ is to annoy, provoke.

~ago~. Compare SINCE.

~agreeable~: Do not spell this word _agreable_. Its component parts are _agree_ plus _able_; always double the “e” before the “a.” _Agreeable_ is often erroneously used for _agreeably_ in correspondence. In this sense it is a commercial colloquialism, meaning “being in accordance or conformity,” as with some previous action. “_Agreeable_ to your request I have forwarded the goods.” Correctly, this should be rendered “_Agreeably_ with your request, etc.,” meaning “so as to be agreeable.”

~agreeably~. Compare AGREEABLE.

~aid~. Compare HELP.

~ain’t~: Avoid as inelegant. In such a phrase as “he ain’t,” it is both vulgar and ungrammatical; “he isn’t” is the preferred form. “The contraction _ain’t_ for isn’t is a vulgarism which ought not to need criticism. Yet ‘_’tain’t_ so’ said an educated preacher once in my hearing. The safe rule respecting contractions is never to use them in public speech. This is the instinct of a perfect taste.” AUSTIN PHELPS, _English Style_, lecture ii. p. 25.

~alienate~, ~antagonize~: _Alienate_ which means “estrange,” should never be used for _antagonize_, meaning “contend against” or “bring into opposition.” Thus, you _alienate_ your friend because you _antagonize_ his views.

~all~. See under ANY, WHOLE, and compare UNIVERSALLY.

~allege~: Do not spell this word _alledge_. It has no connection whatever with _ledge_, a shelf. _Allege_ is derived from the Latin _adlegio_, clear, and came to England with the Normans in the Norman French form _aligier_, Old French, _esligier_, from the Latin, _ex_, out, and _litigo_, to carry strife. It means, to assert.

~alleviate~, ~relieve~: Distinguished from relieve, as _alleviate_, by lightening (Latin _ad_, to, + _levis_, light), mitigates or makes less burdensome, and _relieve_, by removing (Latin _re_, again, + _levis_, lifting up), supplies what is wanting.

_Alleviation_ affects internal sensations, affording comparative ease, whereas _relief_ operates upon external conditions, removing pain. You _alleviate_ suffering and _relieve_ distress or poverty.

~all of them~: This phrase furnishes an excellent example of the common carelessness of speech. _Of_ signifies _from_ or _from out_; and whereas one can subtract a certain quantity _from_ an entire number, one can hardly refer to that number as still existing, in any shape whatever, if one subtracts the whole; for _from out_ implies a remainder. You may say “ship _some_, or any definite number, say _ten of them_,” or “ship _them all_,” but not “ship all of them.”

~all over the world~: A common but undesirable locution for “all the world over” or “over all the world.”

~allow~, ~permit~: Discriminate carefully between these words. _Allow_ implies no attempt at hindrance; _permit_ suggests authorization to do. One _allows_ that to which one interposes no objection or takes no step to prevent; one _permits_ that to which one gives express consent or authorization. In some parts of the United States _allow_ is used in the sense of “think, think likely, intend”; as, “he _allowed_ he would go”; “he _allowed_ to pay it.” It is used also in the sense of _say_. Both uses are wholly inadmissible.

~all right~: In best usage this term is always written as two words. Formerly _alright_ was in vogue, but it is now obsolete.

~allude~: This word is frequently used as synonymous with _mention_, but this is a careless and improper treatment of the term.

“Allude is in danger of losing its peculiar signification, which is delicate and serviceable.... (It) means to indicate jocosely, to hint at playfully.... Allusion is the by-play of language.”--R. G. WHITE _Words and Their Uses_, ch. 5, p. 90. (S. H. & Co. ’70)