Part 13

~take up school~: An objectionable local Americanism for _begin school_: used also intransitively; as, “School _took up_ at 9 o’clock”: avoid this.

~talent~ should not be used for “talents” or “ability.”

~talented~: Inasmuch as adjectives of the participial form are justified by strict grammarians only if derived from an existing verb, this word has been caviled at by Coleridge (who denounced it as “that vile and barbarous vocable”) and many literary pedants. Burke, Hazlitt, Lamb, De Quincey, Macaulay and Newman have however, spoken of “a _talented_ man”; and in the face of this array of learning and authority we can raise but a modest protest in favor of the contention of the grammarians. Such formations are, however, not to be indiscriminately recommended.

~talk, back~. Compare BACK TALK.

~tasty~ in the sense of ~tasteful~ is without authority and is considered an illiterate use. A person or his work may be _tasteful_, but his food, however savory, can be no more than _tasty_.

~team~: Strictly a _team_ consists of two or more beasts of burden harnessed together, but in the United States the word is extended to cover “team and accessories,” the latter being the harness or equipment, together with the vehicle to which the animals are attached.

~tell on~: A common expression with children used in the sense of “to inform against a person,” is derived from Biblical use (I _Sam._ xxvii. 11). The phrase lost to literary English has now no equivalent.

~temper~, ~anger~, ~wrath~: Words in the use of which discrimination should be used. _Temper_ is disposition or constitution of the mind, especially in relation to the affections or the passions; _anger_ is violence or vindicated passion aroused by real or imaginary insult or injury. One may have an irritable _temper_ without being necessarily angry. _Wrath_ is deep, determined, and lasting anger, usually accompanied by outward expression of displeasure. _Anger_ may be only inward feeling without the outward expression of passion.

~tender~ should not be used for “give.” You _tender_ a payment; _give_ a reception.

~testimony~. Compare EVIDENCE.

~than~ as a conjunction should be used only in the case of direct comparison; as, “I esteem this more _than_ that.” When the comparison is merely implied, or covered by the verb, as by the verb _prefer_, _than_ should not be used. See PREFER.

~thanks~ has been condemned as an undignified colloquialism bordering on incivility; but what serious objection is there to this pithy acknowledgment of obligation or gratitude? It has been said that Shakespeare made use of the expression no fewer than fifty-five times, and that the Bible four times contains the utterance “thanks be to God,” Shakespeare’s use of the word with “much” as an adjective is indeed most forcible--“for this relief _much thanks_.”

~than me~ should never be used for _than I_. Say, “He is taller than I”; not “He is taller _than me_.”

~than whom~: A phrase objected to by some grammatical critics, in such locutions as “Cromwell, _than whom_ no man was better skilled in artifice”; but shown to be “a quite classic expression.” Formerly _than_ was often but not always used as a preposition, and _than whom_ is probably a survival of such usage. “_Than whom_” is generally accepted as permissible--probably because the sentence where it occurs can not be mended without reconstruction, and it has abundant literary authority.

~that~: In construing this word, it must be recollected that it is not only a conjunction but also a pronoun, both demonstrative and relative. The peculiarity of the word is such that it can be used more times in succession than any other word in the English language. Exception having been taken to a certain “that” found in a school-boy’s exercise, it was shown that that _that_ that that boy used was right. Dean Alford constructed a sentence on these lines which contained no fewer than nine _thats_ in succession.

_That_ used adverbially is wholly inexcusable. “He was _that_ sick” could only be tolerated if an ellipsis such as “he was (to) _that_ (degree) sick,” could be supposed, but this is more than can be done; and the expression is therefore regarded as an unpardonable vulgarism. Compare AS, THAT (p. 22).

~that there~: An illiterate expression commonly used with the mistaken idea that the use of “there” adds emphasis to what follows, as, “_That there_ man.” Say, rather, “That man there” or simply, and preferably “That man.”

~that~, ~who~: Discriminate carefully between these words. _That_ implies restriction; _who_ generally denotes coordination. As an illustration of this distinction, Alfred Ayres says (“The Verbalist,” p. 202), “‘I met the boatman _who_ took me across the ferry.’ If _who_ is the proper word here, the meaning is ‘I met the boatman, and he took me across the ferry,’ it being supposed that the boatman is known and definite. But if there be several boatmen, and I wish to indicate one in particular, by the circumstance that he had taken me across the ferry, I should use _that_.” _That_ ought, therefore, to be preferred to _who_ or _which_ whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited is to be restricted by the relative clause.

~that’s him~; No, “that’s _he_”--this is correct.

~the~: Before titles of honor, such as Reverend, Honorable, the definite article (though now frequently omitted) should be used. As the title is specific and personal, this is the more necessary.

~the infinitive~: The particle _to_ is an inherent and component part of the infinitive, and is strictly inseparable therefrom, in precisely the same way that the prefixed syllable which assists to form a compound word (as _in_constant) is a necessary part of the compound. But this _to_ belongs to the present infinitive only, and properly finds no place in such expressions as “He was fool enough _to have risked_ his good name.” Despite the hundreds of uses of this method of expression, it is a blunder: the sentence should read “fool enough _to risk_.” It is, too, on the ground of inseparability that the SPLIT INFINITIVE (which see) is so reprehensible. “To dance gracefully” should not be transposed into “to gracefully dance.”

~them~: The use of this word as a demonstrative adjective for a pronoun is wholly unpermissible. A common error due to a desire to designate particularly the article required. Do not say “Give me _them_ things”; say, rather, “... _those_ things.” However, of things previously mentioned one may say “Give _them_ to me.”

~then~: The use of this word as an adjective, as in the phrase “the _then_ Bishop of York,” has been questioned; but the usage is expressive and convenient, and is supported by good literary authority.

~thence~, ~whence~: As these words mean “from there,” “from where,” they should not be preceded by the word _from_ as is often erroneously done.

~these is~, ~them are~: Ungrammatical phrases used by the illiterate for “this is”; “those are.” The pronouns should both agree in number with the verb they govern.

~these kind~, ~those sort~, ~etc.~: Such expressions, though common, are now usually considered altogether wrong. Nouns in the singular require demonstrative adjectives also in the singular. But _this_ may be used instead of _these_ in collective expressions, such as “this ten years.” Yet Shakespeare has many instances of this use. Thus, in “Twelfth Night” (act i, sc. 5) he writes “_these_ kind of fools,” and in “King Lear” (act ii, sc. 2) a precisely similar expression, “_these_ kind of knaves.” In “Othello” (act iii, sc. 3) he has, “_these_ are a kind of men.”

~think, don’t~. See DON’T BELIEVE.

~this or that much~: Not elegant perhaps, but still correct or at least passable. A careful speaker would prefer to say “this much,” because _much_ being an adjective of quality requires, for its elucidation, not a pronoun but an adverb. It is true that in the expression “this” or “that much,” the word “much” could generally, if not always, be omitted without affecting the correctness of the sentence wherein it is used; still the sense would not be precisely the same. “This _much_ I know” denotes a limitation in the extent of knowledge which is not restricted by “this I know.”

~threatening~. Compare EMINENT.

~three first, the~: Incorrect for the _first three_: one may, however, correctly use three first if referring to a race, or the like, in which three of the competitors run a dead heat. Compare TWO FIRST.

~through~: An undesirable colloquialism for “at an end”; “finished”; generally applied to speakers who have completed an address, or to diners who have finished a meal. Both applications are marks of ill-breeding and border on vulgarity.

~tickled to death~: An absurd phrase used to express “greatly pleased.”

~till~: In some parts of the United States oddly misused for _by_; as, “I’ll be there till [_by_] ten o’clock.”

~time~: Avoid such an incongruity as “Heaps of _time_.” “Plenty of _time_,” or “_time_ enough” are to be preferred.

~timely~. Compare SEASONABLE.

~tinker’s dam~: A colloquialism for something worthless, used usually in the phrase “Not worth a tinker’s dam.” Avoided in polite society.

~tiny little~: The use of words as mere intensives should be avoided, for by judicious selection a single word can probably be found which is capable of conveying the precise sense desired. To speak of a “_tiny little_ watch” or “a _great big_ house,” indicates a deplorable poverty of vocabulary. It is true that Shakespeare spoke of “the _most unkindest_ cut of all”; but he made use of intensives only when the unusual circumstances of the case required them.

~tired, to make one~: A colloquialism for “to weary,” or “reduce the patience of” as by absurd stories or silly conversation: a commonplace expression good to avoid.

~to~: Beware of using the preposition _to_ when _at_ is intended. A common error of this sort is instanced by “He was _to_ school this morning.” Possibly the error is made rather in the verb than the preposition, though the influencing cause of error in the uneducated does not always admit of certainty. We suggest, therefore, that the verb “to be” is used unintentionally for “to go,” and that the sentence is perhaps intended to read “he _went to_ school this morning.” Compare AND; FOR.

~togged out or up~: An undesirable and vulgar expression for “well-dressed” or “attired in clothes that may attract attention.”

~to-morrow~: This word is often used with different tenses, the question being raised as to whether it should be “to-morrow _is_ Christmas day” or “to-morrow _will be_ Christmas day.” Both forms are correct. But, generally, in using this word, the supposition is that to-morrow has not arrived at the time of speaking, and, therefore, “to-morrow _will be_ Christmas day” is preferred. Longfellow (_Keramos_, line 331) says: “To-morrow _will be_ another day.” But the other form also has the sanction of usage, as the following quotations will show:

“To-morrow, what delight _is_ in to-morrow!”--T. B. READ, _The New Pastoral_, bk. vi. l. 163.

“To-morrow _is_ a satire on to-day.”--YOUNG, _The Old Man’s Relapse_, l. 6.

The Bible affords numerous instances of this use of “is.” Ex. xvi. 23: “The Lord hath said, to-morrow _is_ the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord”; xxxii. 5: “And Aaron made proclamation and said, to-morrow _is_ a feast to the Lord”; I Sam. xx. 5: “Behold to-morrow _is_ the new moon”; Matt. vi. 30: “If God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day _is_, and to-morrow _is_ cast into the oven.”

Most people would say “Yesterday _was_ Friday.” If the thought is fixed upon the name of the day, it is better to use _is_, if upon the time future it is better to use _will be_.

~toney~: A vulgarism for “fancy” or “stylish,” either of which is a preferable term.

~touch, to~: A slang term for “to borrow” not used by persons careful of their diction. Do not say “I touched him for a ten-spot”; say rather, “I borrowed ten dollars from him.”

~transpire~ is condemned by the best writers in the sense of _happen_. “The verb _transpire_ formerly conveyed very expressively its correct meaning, viz., to become known through unnoticed channels--to exhale, as it were, into publicity through invisible pores, like a vapor or gas disengaging itself. But of late, a practise has commenced of employing the word ... as a mere synonym to _to happen_.... This vile specimen of bad English is already seen in the dispatches of noblemen and viceroys.”--MILL, _Logic_, bk. iv. ch. 5, p. 483.

~truth~. Compare VERACITY.

~try~: This word is often erroneously used for “make.” Do not say “_Try_ the experiment yourself” but “_Make_ the experiment.” An experiment can only be tried, as a speech (in its literal, that is verbal, sense) can only be spoken.

~try and~: A common but incorrect locution. Do not say “Try and come to-day,” but, rather, “_Try to_ come to-day.”

~tumble to~: Slang for “to understand.” Do not say “Do you tumble to it?” Say, rather, “Do you understand it?”

~turn down~: Undesirable, though perhaps expressive slang for “reject”; “ignore”; or “dismiss.” In commercial circles, this expression has wide usage but is not the less inelegant and should be avoided. A proposition is quite as fully disposed of when it is “rejected” as when it is “turned down;” besides, “rejected” should be given preference if only by reason of its brevity.

~turn up~: Used in the sense of to “put in an appearance” this expression has been condemned. The remark of a barrister in a London County Court that a defendant had “not turned up” caused the Judge to exclaim: “Pray do not use such slip-shod expressions.” The barrister apologized. “These are high-pressure days,” he said, “and since your Honor’s days at the bar we have no longer time to indulge in perfect English.”

~twenty-three~: A slang term used as the equivalent of “fade away” in theatrical and sporting circles: a recent expression the origin of which has been variously explained. Compare FADE AWAY.

~two~. Compare COUPLE.

~two and two is~ (or ~are~) ~four~: As an abstract proposition or statement, _is_ is undoubtedly correct; for four _is_ two added to two, or twice two; but when two specific things are added to two others, the verb must be in the plural. In the former case we are saying that a certain single and definite result _is_ attained or total given by the combination of two numbers; in the latter we say that in a given body or number of things _are_ so many single or individual things. Two _men_ and two _are_ undoubtedly four; that is, four men _are_ (constituted of) two and two. Beyond doubt, twice one _is_ two; for it can not be that two (as a single and specific number) are twice one.

~two first~: Of this expression James Murdock says: “The only argument against the use of _two first_, and in favor of substituting _first two_, so far as I can recollect, is this: In the nature of things, there can be only _one first_ and _one last_, in any series of things. But--is it true that there can never be more than _one first_ and _one last_? If it be so, then the adjective _first_ and _last_ must always be of the _singular_ number, and can never agree with nouns in the plural. We are told that _the first years_ of a lawyer’s practise are seldom very lucrative. The poet tells us that his _first essays_ were severely handled by the critics, but his _last efforts_ have been well received. Examples like these might be produced without number. They occur everywhere in all our standard writers.... When a numeral adjective and a qualifying epithet both refer to the same noun, the _general rule_ of the English language is to place the numeral first, then the qualifying epithet, and afterwards the noun. Thus we say, ‘The _two wise_ men,’ ‘the _two tall_ men’; and not ‘the _wise two_ men’ ‘the _tall two_ men.’ And the same rule holds in _superlatives_. We say ‘the _two wisest_ men,’ ‘the _two tallest_ men’ and not ‘the _wisest two_ men,’ ‘the _tallest two_ men.’ Now if this be admitted to be the general rule of the English language, it then follows that we should generally say ‘the _two first_,’ ‘the _two last_,’ etc., rather than ‘the _first two_,’ ‘the _last two_,’ etc. This, I say, should _generally_ be the order of the words. Yet there are some cases in which it seems preferable to say, ‘the _first two_,’ ‘the _first three_,’ etc.” Compare FIRST.

U

~ugly~, which signifies the reverse of beautiful or want of comeliness (actual or figurative) is colloquially extended in the United States to uncomeliness of character or personal demeanor; as an _ugly_ fellow; an _ugly_ beast; anger makes him _ugly_. In polite speech this usage is not sanctioned. Say “irritable,” “vicious,” “quarrelsome,” as the disposition inclines or indicates.

~un-~: For the sake of lucidity the use of a negative prefix with a negative antecedent should be discouraged. Avoid such expressions as “He spoke in _no un_mistakable terms” which means, of course, “mistakable terms” the direct opposite of the speaker’s intention. “_Not_ an _un_kempt one among them” means that all were well kempt.

~unbeknown~: A vulgar provincialism used chiefly in the form _unbeknownst_.

~uncommon~: Used for _uncommonly_: a vulgarism meaning “to an unusual degree or extremely.” Do not say “Her eyes are _uncommon_ beautiful”; say, rather, “... _uncommonly_ beautiful.”

~unconscionable~: When used for _unconscionably_ is a bad provincialism. Used also by the illiterate instead of _uncommonly_; as, “She is an _unconscionable_ handsome girl”--this is bad English.

~under~: Much philological nonsense has been written in disapproval of the expression “_under_ his signature,” for which “over his signature”--that “preposterous conceit,” as Gould aptly terms it--is suggested as a substitute. But it is clear that the expression is elliptical, and means “under sanction or authority of his signature.” “_Under_ oath” is good enough to impress upon an unwilling and prevaricating witness the distinction between perjury and a lie, and that although he does not physically lie _under_ the oath.

~understand~ should not be used as an expletive with interrogatory inflection, as a contraction of “_Do you understand?_” There is no excuse for this nor for its objectionable iteration. Avoid such absurdities as: “Grammar, _understand_, is the science that treats of the principles, _understand_, that govern the correct use of language,” etc. _See_ is also misused in the same manner.

~unique~: As this word implies “being the only one of its kind” it should never be preceded by “very” which implies degree. On this subject the STANDARD DICTIONARY says: “We may say _quite unique_ if we mean absolutely singular or without parallel but we can not properly say _very unique_.”

~United States~: Under this designation the several states comprising the American Union are known collectively as one great nation. As such the expression is singular and accordingly is correctly followed by a verb in the singular.

~universally by all~: A common error. Where anything is done _universally_, it must be done _by all_, and these words being redundant should be omitted.

~universe~ should not be used where _earth_ is intended. If one desires to say of a certain person that he “thinks he owns the _earth_,” one should certainly be careful to limit his vast possessions and not extend them to the _universe_. The latter embraces all comprised in space. “No doubt, there is a _universe_; but the word means all created things, as a whole; not only our entire solar system, but all the other systems of which the fixed stars are but the centres.”--E. S. GOULD, _Good English, Misused Words_, p. 83.

~unless~. See WITHOUT.

~unwell~, owing to its common euphemistic application, should not be used for “ill.”

~up~: In general the word _up_, used in such a phrase as “Open up” or “He _opened up_ his sermon with a parable” is redundant and should be omitted. Compare OPEN.

~up against it~: A colloquial expression used as the equivalent of “face to face with” some condition or thing, usually of a discouraging or disastrous character. Though common in commercial circles it is an expression that it is best to avoid.

~upon~: Often used for _on_ in such phrases as “call _upon_,” whether meaning _visit_ or _summon_ and “speak (or write) _upon_.” The reasonable tendency now is to use the simpler _on_ whenever the idea of superposition is not involved.

~usage~. Compare HABIT.

~use~: This word is used in all sorts of incorrect and inelegant ways; yet the conjugation of the verb is positive and very simple--_use_; _used_; _using_. There appears to be no difficulty in applying it affirmatively but when used in a negative form one often hears such uncouth expressions as “You _didn’t use_ to,” “you _hadn’t used_ to” instead of “You used not to,” etc. It need scarcely be said that these expressions are vulgarisms of the worst type. “I usedn’t to” is not pretty, but is less formal than “I used not to,” and can not be objected to on grammatical grounds.

~usually~. Compare COMMONLY.

~utter~ as a verb should be distinguished from _say_, as articulate expression is differentiated from written. To _utter_, save in the legal sense, is to emit audibly. Adjectively the word can be used only in an unfavorable sense for “complete.” _Utter_ discord there may be, but _not_ utter harmony; _utter_ silence, but _not_ utter speech.

V

~vain~, ~vein~: Words of similar pronunciation whose spelling is sometimes confused by the careless. _Vein_ is the Latin _vena_, blood-vessel, from _veho_, carry, and is therefore totally distinct from _vain_, which is from the Latin _vanus_, empty.

~valuable~ is occasionally misused for _valued_. _Valuable_ is said correctly only of things that have monetary value or derive worth as from their character or quality. One may have _valued_ friends and _valuable_ art-treasures, but _not_ valuable friends nor valued art-treasures.

~venal~, ~venial~: Discriminate carefully between these words. One who is _venal_ is ready to sell his influence or efforts for some consideration from sordid motives; he is mercenary. But one who is _venial_ has committed only a slight or trivial fault. A man who has sold his vote for preferment is a _venal_ politician; a starving man who has stolen a loaf of bread for his family has been guilty of a _venial_ offense.

~ventilate~ should not be used for “expose” or “explain.”

~veracity~, ~truth~: Do not confound these words. _Truth_ is applied to persons and facts; _veracity_ only to persons and to statements made by them. One should not speak of the _veracity_ of anything that has occurred. A man of integrity may have a reputation for _veracity_; if so, there is no doubt that he told the _truth_ or that the account he gave was _true_.

~verbal nouns~, especially such as could be replaced by a noun pure and simple, etymologically coordinate, should be preceded by a possessive in sentences of this character: “The cause of Henry (_’s_) dying was appendicitis.” _Dying_ is here equivalent to _death_; and we should (if we substituted the pronoun) certainly say “the cause of _his_ dying” rather than “the cause of _him_ dying.”

~verse~: The chief meaning of this word is a single line of poetry; sometimes it is used as a synonym for _stanza_. Some grammarians advocate the use of _verse_ instead of _stanza_, and the familiar character of the word seems to argue in favor of this use.

~very~: Excepting where a participle is used solely as an adjective, it is now thought to be more grammatical to interpose an adverb between the participle and this word. Thus, “_very greatly_ dissatisfied” is preferred to “very dissatisfied,” whereas “_very_ tired” is accepted as correct. Compare REAL.

~vest~: In the sense of waistcoat, this word, which is in better usage a synonym for _undervest_, is not used by precise speakers.

~vice~. Compare CRIME.