Part 14

~vicinity~ should not be used for “neighborhood.”

~visit~: A term sometimes misused. Do not say “The actor has just _visited_, with much abuse, the head of the critic,” when you mean that he abused him roundly. This is an erroneous application of the word, which is confounded with the Scriptural usage “to send judgment from heaven upon” as punishment.

~vocation~. Compare AVOCATION.

W

~wa’n’t~: A contraction of _was not_, or improperly of _were not_; as, “He _wa’n’t_ (or they _wa’n’t_) at home”: a common vulgarism.

~want~ and ~need~ are not synonymous terms, although both denote a lack. _Want_, however, refers more properly to a personal conception of shortcoming or shortage, whereas _need_ denotes the matter of fact. Thus a delinquent son may _need_ castigation, while he distinctly does not _want_ it. _Want_, therefore, signifies a wish to supply what is lacking. But the word _want_ is sometimes less strong than _need_, for a covetous man _wants_ (_i. e._, desires) many things he does not _need_ (or things for which he has an absolute necessity). “I _need_ assistance or I shall drown.” Again, “I _want_ a position, but do not _need_ it, because I can continue as I am without it; but when resources fail I shall _need_ it.”

~want of~: An undesirable colloquialism. Do not say “What does he _want of_ a yacht?” say, rather. _want with_, or “_What need_ has he _of_ a yacht?”

~warm~: A slang term used for “rich,” formerly in vogue in England.

~warm, not so~: A vulgar phrase applied to persons and meaning usually “not as important” or “not as accurate” as the person to whom the epithet is applied may think himself to be.

~was~, ~is~: These terms are sometimes confused, especially in dependent sentences that state unchanging facts. Then _the present tense_ should be used in the dependent sentence notwithstanding the fact that the principal verb may denote action in _the past_. Say, “He _said_ that space _is_ (_not_ was) infinite”; “We _assert_ that life _is_ everlasting.”

~watch~, ~observe~: These words have a similarity of meaning, but _watch_ expresses a scrutiny or close observation which is not implied by the latter. You _observe_ a preacher’s manner but carefully _watch_ a thief. When you _observe_ intently and concentrate your entire thoughts upon the thing observed you _watch_. You _observe_ the hour of day but _watch_ the time lest you lose your train.

~way~ or ~’way~, as an abbreviation of the adverb _away_, as “_’way_ out West,” is an impropriety of speech. Say, rather, “He has gone (or is in the) West.”

~ways~, for ~way~: In the sense of “space or distance,” the erroneous form _ways_, for _way_, is often used colloquially, perhaps originally through confusion with the suffix _-ways_; as, “The church is a long _ways_ from here,” which should be “The church is a long _way_,” etc.

~weary~. Compare TIRED.

~weather, under the~: In the sense of “somewhat ill,” as though depressed by the weather, this is a colloquialism better avoided.

~went~: This word should never be used as a participle; say, “He _went_” or “he has _gone_” instead of “he _has went_.” Never use _went_ after any part of the verb _have_. Do not say “I _have went_ there often”; but “I _have been_ there often.” _Went_ should never be used for _go_. Some illiterate people say “I should _have went_” when they mean “I should _have gone_.”

~were her~: Often used incorrectly as in the sentence “If I were _her_.” Say, rather, “If I were _she_.” Her is the objective case; here the nominative _she_ should be used.

~wharf~: E. S. Gould declares that as _dwarves_ would be an improper plural for dwarf, so is _wharves_ for wharf. However, both forms are now admitted. Compare DOCK.

~what~: As _what_ is both antecedent and relative the use of the antecedent with this word is wrong. “All _what_ he said was false” should be corrected by the elision of “all.” _What_ is used only in reference to things, whereas _that_ can be said of persons, animals, and things, and can be substituted for it.

~what was~, ~what was not~: “What was” and “what wasn’t my surprise” may both be used correctly to express considerable surprise, and with almost the same meaning, the one expression differing from the other but by a shade in sense. “How great was my surprise,” and “What surprise could equal or be greater, than mine,” would about paraphrase the usages. The former sentence implies great surprise, but the possibility (though unreferred to) of a greater; the latter indicates that there could not be any greater surprise.

~wheels in the~ (or ~his~) ~head, to have~: A slang phrase used as a substitute for “to be eccentric, peculiar, or erratic.”

~whence~: “_Whence_ came you” is sufficient and correct. “From _whence_” is pleonastic, the _whence_ being nothing less than “_from_ where” and thus including the _from_. Compare THENCE.

~where~: The prepositions _to_ or _at_ should never end a sentence beginning with _where_. Such use is vulgar and illiterate. Avoid: “_Where_ has he gone _to_?” “_Where_ was I _at_?”

~whereabouts~: This word, plural in form, but singular in construction, always takes a verb, in the singular. “Husband and wife disappeared; their whereabouts _is_ a mystery.”

~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