Part 7

~habit~, ~custom~, ~usage~: Discriminate carefully between these words. In strict usage _habit_ pertains exclusively to the individual; _custom_ to a race or nation of people, as, the _customs_ of the Jews. _Usage_ refers particularly to habitual practise or something permitted by it or done in accordance with it.

~had better~, ~would better~: Although according to grammatical rule _had better_ is incorrect, it has been used by writers of correct English and it may be found repeatedly in the English Classics. Therefore, it is generally considered good usage and preferable to _would better_ which, though correct, is seldom heard and usually considered pedantic.

~had~, ~have~: In such a phrase as “_Had I have_ heard of it,” the verb _have_ is redundant, for _had_ here is used elliptically for _if I had_, and carries the contingency to the past. Care should be taken to avoid such locutions as the example given which is one of a class that stamps those who make use of them as grossly ignorant.

~had ought~: The use of any part of the verb _have_ with _ought_ is a vulgarism. Not “I _had ought_ to have written,” but simply “I _ought_ to have written”; not “He _hadn’t ought_ to have done it,” but “He _ought not_ to have done it.”

~had rather~, ~had better~: Forms disputed by certain critics, from the days of Samuel Johnson, the critics insisting upon the substitution of _would_ or _should_, as the case may demand, for _had_; but _had rather_ and _had better_ are thoroughly established English idioms having the almost universal popular and literary sanction of centuries. “I _would rather_ not go” is undoubtedly correct when the purpose is to emphasize the element of choice or will in the matter; but in all ordinary cases “I _had rather_ not go” has the merit of being idiomatic and easily and universally understood.

I _had rather_ be a doorkeeper in the house of my God than to dwell in the tents of wickedness. _Ps._ lxxxiv. 10.

If for “You _had better_ stay at home,” we substitute “You _should better_ stay at home,” an entirely different meaning is expressed, the idea of expediency giving place to that of obligation.--STANDARD DICTIONARY.

“_Would rather_ may always be substituted for _had rather_. _Might rather_ would not have the same meaning. _Would_ and _should_ do not go well with _better_. In one instance _can_ is admissible. ‘I can better afford,’ because _can_ is especially associated with _afford_. We may say _might better_, but it has neither the sanction, the idiomatic force, nor the precise meaning of _had better_.”--SAMUEL RAMSEY, _Eng. Lang. and Gram._ pt. ii. ch. 6, p. 413.

~hail~, ~hale~: _Hail_ is pronounced as _hale_ (robust; sound) but should be distinguished therefrom, although for that word there is an alternative spelling _hail_, which, however, is rarely used. _Hale_ is from Icelandish _heill_, sound; _hail_ is from the Anglo-Saxon, _haegel_, frozen rain.

~hain’t~: A common vulgarism for _have not_, _haven’t_, and made worse, if possible, by being used also for _has not_ or _hasn’t_; as “I _hain’t_,” “He _hain’t_,” etc. “I _haven’t_,” “He _hasn’t_,” are permissible, “_haven’t_ I?” “_hasn’t_ he?” are acceptable in conversation. But when the subject precedes in the first person singular and the plural, it is preferable to abbreviate the verb; as, “_I’ve not_” “_you’ve not_,” etc.

~half~: Inasmuch as in equivalent terms of the whole there can not be a single _half_ but must be two _halves_, one should speak of dividing (the whole) into two or into halves rather than of cutting (it) in _half_.

~half-cock, to go off at~: A colloquial phrase denoting “to speak before one is ready”; not used by persons accustomed to refined diction.

~handful~: This word has for a plural _handfuls_. “Two _handfuls_ of flour” means a handful taken twice, whereas _hands full_ means both hands full. This last term is often erroneously written _handsful_.

~handy~: Properly said of articles on which one may lay the hand, or possibly of persons, as attendants, ready at hand for service. Applied to neighborhood, “near,” “near by,” “close at hand,” or the like are to be preferred.

~hang~: This verb has for its perfect tense and past participle two forms, _hanged_ and _hung_; but in the sense of execution (_sus per col_), the former term is alone correctly used, whereas in other senses the latter is applied. Thus, one may say, “A hat is _hung_ on a peg, but a murderer is _hanged_ on the gallows,” and _not_ that the hat is hanged _nor_ that the murderer is hung.

~hanger on~: A colloquialism for “a dependent or parasite:” the term is inelegant and therefore undesirable.

~hangs on~: As a substitute for “remains,” the expression finds no favor.

~happen~. Compare TRANSPIRE.

~happen in, to~: A colloquialism often met in rural districts and used for “to make a chance social call,” or “to drop in casually” as one passes by.

~happiness~. Compare PLEASURE.

~hard case~: An American colloquialism for a person of pronounced or curious type.

~hardly~. Compare SCARCELY.

~hardy~. Compare RUGGED.

~hasten~, ~hurry~: Although both words imply a celerity of action, the former presupposes consideration and is not opposed to good order, whereas the latter is indicative of perturbation and a measure of irregularity. Therefore these terms are not synonymous. Phelps in his “English Style in Public Discourse,” says “the first does not imply confusion; the second does.” Lexicographers do not restrict the meaning of _hurry_ to “to confuse by undue haste or suddenness,” but define it as “to cause to be done rapidly or more rapidly; accelerate.” You _hasten_ to congratulate but _hurry_ to catch a train.

~have~: On the use of this word the STANDARD DICTIONARY says; Used in the past tense following another past tense, a use often indiscriminately condemned, though sometimes proper and necessary. (1) _Improper construction._ Where what was “meant,” “intended,” or the like was, at the time when intended, some act (as of going, writing, or speaking) _future_ in its purpose and not _past_, and therefore not to be expressed by a _past tense_; as, “He meant _to have gone_” for “He meant _to go_”; “I meant _to have written_ to you, but forgot it,” for “I meant _to write_,” etc.; “I had intended _to have spoken_ to him about it,” for “I had intended _to speak_,” etc.; “I should like _to have gone_” for “I should have liked _to go_.” The infinitive with _to_ expresses the relation of an act as so conceived, so that both analogy and prevalent usage require “meant to go” instead of “meant to have gone.” Such construction, although occasional instances of it still occur in works of authors of the highest literary reputation, and still often heard in conversation, is now generally regarded as ungrammatical.

(2) _Proper construction._ The doubling of the past tenses in connection with the use of _have_ with a past participle is _proper and necessary_ when the completion of the future act was intended before the occurrence of something else mentioned or thought of. Attention to this qualification, which has been overlooked in the criticism of tense-formation and connection, is especially important and imperative. If one says, “I meant _to have visited_ Paris and _to have returned_ to London before my father _arrived_ from America,” the past infinitive in the dependent clause is necessary for the expression of the completion of the acts purposed. “I meant _to visit_ Paris and _to return_ to London before my father _arrived_ from America,” may convey suggestively the thought intended, but does not express it.

~have seen~, ~seen~, ~saw~: In combining words that denote time always observe the order and fitness of time. Do not say “I _have seen_ him last month”; say, rather, “I _saw_ him _last month_.” Nor say, “I _seen_ him _this week_”--a common error in grammar among the careless; say, rather, “I _have seen_ him _this week_,” a form that should be used also, instead of “I _saw_ him _this week_.”

~he~, ~she~, ~her~, ~him~, etc.: Pronouns often used incorrectly; inexcusable errors in the educated, which are illustrated by such expressions as “If I were _him_ (or _her_), I would,” etc. It should be “If I were _he_ (or _she_), I would,” etc.

~healthful~, ~healthy~: Discriminate carefully between these words. A _healthful_ thing is one efficacious in promoting or causing health; _healthy_ denotes condition or characteristics; as “a _healthy_ child”; “a _healthful_ climate.”

~heap~: A word sometimes used to designate a “large number.” A _heap_ is “a collection of things piled up so as to form an elevation”; any other application of the word is colloquial.

~hearty~: As applied to the appetite is so common at this day that it seems perhaps hypercritical to object to it; and the dictionaries of course give the sense, for it is the lexicographer’s duty to record the language as it exists _not_ as it ought to exist. That is _hearty_ which proceeds from the heart; to extend the sentiment to the appetite, or to a meal, or to its eater, as is done by common usage, seems taking a liberty with the word, and applying a fine and expressive term to a comparatively unworthy object.

~heir~: Pronounce without aspirating the _h_. Distinguish between _heir apparent_ and _heir presumptive_. The former is “one who must by course of law become the _heir_ if he survive his ancestor”; the latter, “one whose present legal expectation of becoming heir may be defeated by the birth of a person in near degree of relationship.” Thus, a man may to-day be _heir presumptive_ to his bachelor brother who by marriage may in a year’s time become the father of a son, who will then become _heir apparent_; and by this circumstance the claims of the former _heir presumptive_ are quashed.

The STANDARD DICTIONARY says: “_Heir_ is often colloquially applied to one who receives or is to receive a property by will. In legal terminology such a person is a _devisee_ or legatee, not an _heir_.” As an _heir_ does not exist till death either by will or operation of law, it is only by impropriety of speech that one talks of the heirs of the living.

~help~ has the meaning of “assist”; it has also the somewhat opposed meaning of “prevent, hinder, or refrain from.” This veiled negative makes the correct application of the word difficult. Take, for example, the sentence “Make no more noise than you can _help_.” I can not _help_ doing a thing is I can not refrain from doing it: that is, I can not _not_ do it, which means I must do it. The correct form of the sentence just given is shown by filling in the ellipsis, whence it appears that _not_ should also be supplied: “Make no more noise than (such as) you can (_not_) _help_ (making).” _Help_ includes _aid_, but _aid_ may fall short of the meaning of _help_.

~hence~, ~thence~, ~whence~: As in meaning these words embrace _from_ it is pleonastic to precede them by the word thus implied. Do not say, “go from hence,” “from thence he went to Rome,” “from whence did you come.” _From_ is redundant in all these sentences.

~hen-party~: A vulgar term for a social gathering of ladies. Compare STAG-PARTY.

~herd~: A term sometimes applied indiscriminately to persons as well as beasts. _Herd_ is correctly used to designate, “a number of animals feeding or herding together;” when applied to persons the true designation is “a disorderly rabble,” or “the lower classes,” as the vulgar _herd_.

~him and me~: It is a vulgar error to use the objective for the nominative. One should not say, “Him and me are going to Bermuda,” say, rather, “He and I (or preferably ‘we’) are going to Bermuda.” Do not say, “Between _you and I_,” but say, “Between _you and me_,” or “Between _us_.”

~hire~. Compare LEASE.

~holocaust~: A term sometimes misused owing to a lexicographical error which attributes to the word the meaning of “any great disaster.” According to this the Johnstown Flood, the Galveston storm, and the fire in the Paris bazaar all were holocausts, but this is erroneous. _Holocaust_ is derived from the Greek _holos_, entire, whole, and _kaustos_, burnt, and its principal meaning is “a sacrificial offering burnt whole or entirely consumed.” Figuratively, the term may be applied to destruction by fire, as the burning of the steamer “General Slocum” in the East River, New York, or the great fire in Baltimore, but not to loss as by shipwreck or collision unless attended by fire.

~holy~: The word means not only “morally excellent” but also “set apart for the service of God”; and therefore the criticism that “to keep _holy_ the Sabbath day” is a meaningless injunction as every day should be kept _holy_, is without merit. The word is derived from the Anglo Saxon and means “whole”; and the divine direction as to the Sabbath is, therefore, simply that the day be observed in its integrity.

~holy mackerel~: An inane expression commonly used to denote surprise and one to be avoided by all persons with pretentions to refined diction.

~hoodoo~: A colloquialism designating any person regarded as bringing ill luck, as a “Jonah,” on shipboard, in allusion to the Bible story of the prophet Jonah.

~horde~: This word means “a gathered multitude of human beings; a troop, gang, or crew; as the _hordes_ of Cambyses.” It is never correctly applied to things. Do not speak of a _horde_ of rubbish.

~horse sense~: A colloquial phrase designating “rough common sense” used by W. D. Howells in “Hazard of New Fortunes,” vol. i. p. 4.

~how?~ should never be used for “What did you say?” Nor in making a _request_ for the repetition of any statement not heard clearly or not readily understood. Condemned by Oliver Wendell Holmes in “A Rhymed Lesson,” st. 43.

“Do put your accents in the proper spot; Don’t--let me beg you--don’t say “How?” for “What?”

~how~ is an adverb, but it is sometimes most inelegantly used as an interjection and very improperly used as a conjunction, which it is not. On this subject the STANDARD DICTIONARY says, “_How_, as an adverb, may be used as an interrogative or a relative in any of its senses. In old or vulgar usage it is sometimes nearly equivalent to the conjunction _that_: either (1) alone, as, he told me _how_ he had been left an orphan; or (2) in the phrases _how that_ and _as how_; as, he told _how that_ he saw it all; he told me _as how_ I angered him.”

~however~: As an adverb _however_ has proper and elegant use as, “_However_ wise one may be, there are limits to one’s knowledge.” But its use for _how_ and _ever_ as, “_However_ could he do it?” should be avoided as a vulgarism; while its employment in the sense of “at any rate; at all,” as in the example, “He tried to keep me, but I’m going, _however_,” is provincial and archaic.

As a conjunction it should not be used indiscriminately, as it often is used, for _but_ or _notwithstanding_. Not “He was sick; not, _however_, so seriously as he thought,” but “He was sick, _but_ not so seriously,” etc.; since the relation is sharply adversitive. “And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning. _Notwithstanding_ (not _but_) they harkened not unto Moses”; since the preceding thought is represented as no impediment to the succeeding one. “I have not seen her since our quarrel; _however_ (not _but_, or _notwithstanding_), I expect to be recalled every hour”; since the relation is one of concession and simple transition, _however_ denoting that “in whatever manner or degree what precedes is valid, what follows nevertheless stands firm.”--STANDARD DICTIONARY.

~hung~ should never be used for _hanged_. Beef is _hung_; a murderer is _hanged_. Compare HANG.

~hunk, to get~: A vulgar phrase for “to get even” or “to retaliate upon.”

~hunky~ or ~hunky-dory~: Slang terms that should not be used for “all right”; “safe”; or “done satisfactorily.”

~hurry~. Compare HASTEN.

I

~I~, ~and me~: “They had come to see _my sister and I_” is a common error. In this sentence “they” stands in the nominative case, and “my sister _and I_,” being the objects of the action of the nominative “they,” should be noun and pronoun in the objective case. To be correct the clause should read “my sister _and me_.” “They have come to see _my_ sister _and me_.”

~ice-cream~, ~ice-water~: Common English idioms sometimes condemned as incorrect. The STANDARD DICTIONARY recording usage recognizes the forms _ice-cream_ and _ice-water_ as correct. Inasmuch as _iced_ means “made cold with ice; as _iced milk_ or _iced tea_,” it would seem that by analogy the correct phrases should be _iced cream_, _iced water_, for one would not think of asking for _ice tea_ or _ice milk_, but these idioms are so firmly established that it is doubtful if they will ever be changed.

~idea~. Compare OPINION.

~ie~, ~ei~: The rule governing the use of these letters in spelling is commonly expressed “I before E except after C.” Therefore, remember _believe_ is correct, not “beleive”; _receive_ and not “recieve”; _brief_, and not “breif”; _reprieve_, not “repreive”; _retrieve_, not “retreive.”

~if~, ~or~: Do not say “seldom _or_ ever,” say, rather, “seldom _if_ ever,” or “seldom _or_ never.”

~if~, ~whether~: Sometimes _if_ is incorrectly used for _whether_. It is used correctly when supposition or condition is implied; _whether_, chiefly when an alternative is suggested or presented. “If he sends the money I shall then decide _whether_ or not I will go.”

~ill~: The STANDARD DICTIONARY says: The use of _ill_ and _sick_ differs in the two great English-speaking countries. _Ill_ is used in both lands alike, but the preferred sense of _sick_ in England is that of “sick at the stomach, nauseated,” while in the United States the two words are freely interchangeable. Still Tennyson and other good writers freely use _sick_ in the sense of _ill_. The tendency of modern usage is to remand _ill_ and _well_ (referring to condition of health) to the predicate. We say “A person who is _ill_,” rather than “An _ill_ person”; “I am _well_,” but not “I am in a _well_ state of health.” _Ill_ in the abstract sense of _bad_ or _wicked_ is obsolescent, or rather practically obsolete except in poetic or local use. Compare ILLY.

~illusion~. Compare DELUSION.

~illy~: This word should never be used for _ill_ since ill is both an adverb and an adjective. Say, “He behaved _ill_”; not “he behaved _illy_.” Illy is now obsolescent.

~immerge~. Compare EMERGE.

~immigrant~. Compare EMIGRANT.

~imminent~. Compare EMINENT.

~immunity~ and ~impunity~ are sometimes confounded. They are both from the Latin, the former being produced by _in_, not, + _munus_, service, and the latter by _in_ + _pœna_, punishment. Freedom from any burden, or exemption from evil, duty or penalty has perhaps not unnaturally, been associated with freedom from punishment. A boy may insult his brother with _impunity_ but can not expect to enjoy a like _immunity_ from strangers.

~impending~. Compare EMINENT.

~imperative~, ~imperious~: Discriminate carefully between these words. That which is _imperative_ may be either mandatory or authoritative; while that which is _imperious_ may be domineering or overbearing.

~implicate~. Compare INVOLVE.

~inaugurate~: Phelps declares that this word in the sense of “introduce” is improper and restricts its meaning to “investiture in office.” But lexicographers disregard this distinction and declare that _inaugurate_ may be correctly used to mean also “to set in operation; to initiate; to originate; as to _inaugurate_ reforms.”

“~Indeed!~” “~Is that so?~” Discriminate carefully between these terms. “_Indeed_” expresses surprise. “_Is that so?_” like “you don’t say?” implies disbelief and calls for the reiteration of the statement made. As these interrogations are used chiefly to discredit or disconcert the speaker they may be characterized as specimens of “refined” rudeness.

~indentation~, ~indention~: An _indentation_ is a notch in an edge or border; it is also a dent; and _indention_ is a setting of type in such manner as to leave a blank space on the left side of a margin of type-matter as at the beginning of a paragraph.

The printers’ _indention_ is not (as it is often said to be) a shortened form of _indentation_, but an original word from _dent_ (_dint_), “a denting in, a depression,” and hence is the proper word, rather than _indentation_, to express the idea.

~indices~: A plural form of _index_, generally and more properly reserved for use in science and mathematics. In other cases the plural _indexes_ should be used.

~indict~, ~indite~: Although the pronunciation of these words is identical their meanings, in modern practise, differ materially. Both words are from the Latin _in_ + _dico_, say. The first means to prefer an indictment (or formal written charge of crime) against. The second means “to put into words in writing” but it does not carry with it, the legal signification of the preceding.

~induction~. Compare DEDUCTION.

~inferior~: In constant and approved use in such expressions as “an _inferior_ man,” “goods of an _inferior_ sort”; corresponding to such expressions as “a _superior_ man,” “materials of _superior_ quality”--all of which may be regarded as elliptical forms of speech. In reply to Dean Alford’s challenge of this usage (_Queen’s English_ ¶ 214, p. 82), it is enough to say that life would be too short to admit of all such ellipses, being supplied, even if such supply would not make speech too prolix for common use.

~inform~. Compare POST.

~ingenious~, ~ingenuous~: Words sometimes used erroneously. _Ingenious_ characterizes persons possessed of cleverness or ability; ready, skilful, prompt, or apt to contrive. _Ingenuous_ means free from guile; candid; open; frank.

~in~, ~into~: Discriminate carefully between these words. _In_ denotes position, state, etc.; _into_, tendency, direction, destination, etc.

~inkslinger~: A vulgar term for a journalist, writer, or literary worker, and as such one to be avoided.

~innumerable~ means “that cannot be numbered.” Therefore, avoid such a locution as “an _innumerable_ number,” as absurd.

~in our midst~: An undesirable and ambiguous phrase for “among us” due to the misinterpretation of “in the midst of us,” “in the midst of them” (_Matt._ xviii, 20) but with some literary authority for its use.

~in so far as~: In this phrase the word _in_ is redundant and meaningless. Do not say, “_In so far as_ I dared, I spoke the truth.” Omit the _in_.

~in spite of~: A phrase which some persons declare not synonymous with _notwithstanding_, yet the STANDARD DICTIONARY authorizes its use and says, “formerly in contempt of; now, notwithstanding: used somewhat emphatically.”

~intend~, ~mean~: The use of _intend_ for _mean_, as in explanatory sentences, is not commonly approved although it has the sanction of literary usage, and is considered correct by lexicographers who in defining the words treat them as interchangeable. When explaining anything that has been said it is preferable to say, “By this I _mean_,” rather than “By this I _intend_.” Do not say “Do you _mean_ to come?” when you wish to know whether or not the person you address _intends_ to come. Compare CONTEMPLATE.

~in the street~, ~on the street~: Distinctions between these phrases are invariably wiredrawn. Both forms are permissible; the writer’s preference, which may be modified according to circumstances, is for the first. “His home is _in_ Eighty-seventh street” is preferable to “_on_ Eighty-seventh street.” One should not say “his home is _on_ Bermuda,” but “_in_ Bermuda.” “He lives _at_ Hamilton, _in_ Queen street.” Compare ON.

~invest~: Properly used only of considerable transactions, and always with a suggestion of permanent proprietary right. One does not _invest_ (except in a humorous sense) in a postage-stamp.

~invite~: Used in the sense of “invitation” this term, a colloquialism formerly in wide use, is condemned as illiterate and bordering on vulgarity.