Chapter 15

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Common Stumbling Blocks--Peculiar Constructions--Misused Forms.

ATTRACTION

Very often the verb is separated from its real nominative or subject by several intervening words and in such cases one is liable to make the verb agree with the subject nearest to it. Here are a few examples showing that the leading writers now and then take a tumble into this pitfall:

(1) "The partition which the two ministers made of the powers of government _were_ singularly happy."--_Macaulay_.

(Should be _was_ to agree with its subject, _partition_.)

(2) "One at least of the qualities which fit it for training ordinary men _unfit_ it for _training_ an extraordinary man."--_Bagehot_.

(Should be _unfits_ to agree with subject _one_.)

(3) "The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those dangerous influences whose appearance _were_ the chief cause of our action."--_The Times_.

(Should be _was_ to agree with _appearance_.)

(4) "An immense amount of confusion and indifference _prevail_ in these days."--_Telegraph_.

(Should be _prevails_ to agree with amount.)

ELLIPSIS

Errors in ellipsis occur chiefly with prepositions.

His objection and condoning of the boy's course, seemed to say the least, paradoxical.

(The preposition _to_ should come after objection.)

Many men of brilliant parts are crushed by force of circumstances and their genius forever lost to the world.

(Some maintain that the missing verb after genius is _are_, but such is ungrammatical. In such cases the right verb should be always expressed: as--their genius _is_ forever lost to the world.)

THE SPLIT INFINITIVE

Even the best speakers and writers are in the habit of placing a modifying word or words between the _to_ and the remaining part of the infinitive. It is possible that such will come to be looked upon in time as the proper form but at present the splitting of the infinitive is decidedly wrong. "He was scarcely able _to_ even _talk_" "She commenced _to_ rapidly _walk_ around the room." "_To have_ really _loved_ is better than not _to have_ at all _loved_." In these constructions it is much better not to split the infinitive. In every-day speech the best speakers sin against this observance.

In New York City there is a certain magistrate, a member of "the 400," who prides himself on his diction in language. He tells this story: A prisoner, a faded, battered specimen of mankind, on whose haggard face, deeply lined with the marks of dissipation, there still lingered faint reminders of better days long past, stood dejected before the judge. "Where are you from?" asked the magistrate. "From Boston," answered the accused. "Indeed," said the judge, "indeed, yours is a sad case, and yet you don't seem _to_ thoroughly _realise_ how low you have sunk." The man stared as if struck. "Your honor does me an injustice," he said bitterly. "The disgrace of arrest for drunkenness, the mortification of being thrust into a noisome dungeon, the publicity and humiliation of trial in a crowded and dingy courtroom I can bear, but to be sentenced by a Police Magistrate who _splits his infinitives_--that is indeed the last blow."

ONE

The indefinite adjective pronoun _one_ when put in place of a personal substantive is liable to raise confusion. When a sentence or expression is begun with the impersonal _one_ the word must be used throughout in all references to the subject. Thus, "One must mind one's own business if one wishes to succeed" may seem prolix and awkward, nevertheless it is the proper form. You must not say--"One must mind his business if he wishes to succeed," for the subject is impersonal and therefore cannot exclusively take the masculine pronoun. With _any one_ it is different. You may say--"If any one sins he should acknowledge it; let him not try to hide it by another sin."

ONLY

This is a word that is a pitfall to the most of us whether learned or unlearned. Probably it is the most indiscriminately used word in the language. From the different positions it is made to occupy in a sentence it can relatively change the meaning. For instance in the sentence--"I _only_ struck him that time," the meaning to be inferred is, that the only thing I did to him was to _strike_ him, not kick or otherwise abuse him. But if the _only_ is shifted, so as to make the sentence read-"I struck him _only_ that time" the meaning conveyed is, that only on that occasion and at no other time did I strike him. If another shift is made to-"I struck _only_ him that time," the meaning is again altered so that it signifies he was the only person I struck.

In speaking we can by emphasis impress our meaning on our hearers, but in writing we have nothing to depend upon but the position of the word in the sentence. The best rule in regard to _only_ is to place it _immediately before_ the word or phrase it modifies or limits.

ALONE

is another word which creates ambiguity and alters meaning. If we substitute it for only in the preceding example the meaning of the sentence will depend upon the arrangement. Thus "I _alone_ struck him at that time" signifies that I and no other struck him. When the sentence reads "I struck him _alone_ at that time" it must be interpreted that he was the only person that received a blow. Again if it is made to read "I struck him at that time _alone_" the sense conveyed is that that was the only occasion on which I struck him. The rule which governs the correct use of _only_ is also applicable to _alone_.

OTHER AND ANOTHER

These are words which often give to expressions a meaning far from that intended. Thus, "I have _nothing_ to do with that _other_ rascal across the street," certainly means that I am a rascal myself. "I sent the despatch to my friend, but another villain intercepted it," clearly signifies that my friend is a villain.

A good plan is to omit these words when they can be readily done without, as in the above examples, but when it is necessary to use them make your meaning clear. You can do this by making each sentence or phrase in which they occur independent of contextual aid.

AND WITH THE RELATIVE

Never use _and_ with the _relative_ in this manner: "That is the dog I meant _and which_ I know is of pure breed." This is an error quite common. The use of _and_ is permissible when there is a parallel relative in the preceding sentence or clause. Thus: "There is the dog which I meant and which I know is of pure breed" is quite correct.

LOOSE PARTICIPLES

A participle or participial phrase is naturally referred to the nearest nominative. If only one nominative is expressed it claims all the participles that are not by the construction of the sentence otherwise fixed. "John, working in the field all day and getting thirsty, drank from the running stream." Here the participles _working_ and _getting_ clearly refer to John. But in the sentence,--"Swept along by the mob I could not save him," the participle as it were is lying around loose and may be taken to refer to either the person speaking or to the person spoken about. It may mean that I was swept along by the mob or the individual whom I tried to save was swept along.

"Going into the store the roof fell" can be taken that it was the roof which was going into the store when it fell. Of course the meaning intended is that some person or persons were going into the store just as the roof fell.

In all sentence construction with participles there should be such clearness as to preclude all possibility of ambiguity. The participle should be so placed that there can be no doubt as to the noun to which it refers. Often it is advisable to supply such words as will make the meaning obvious.

BROKEN CONSTRUCTION

Sometimes the beginning of a sentence presents quite a different grammatical construction from its end. This arises from the fact probably, that the beginning is lost sight of before the end is reached. This occurs frequently in long sentences. Thus: "Honesty, integrity and square-dealing will bring anybody much better through life than the absence of either." Here the construction is broken at _than_. The use of _either_, only used in referring to one of two, shows that the fact is forgotten that three qualities and not two are under consideration. Any one of the three meanings might be intended in the sentence, viz., absence of any one quality, absence of any two of the qualities or absence of the whole three qualities. Either denotes one or the other of two and should never be applied to any one of more than two. When we fall into the error of constructing such sentences as above, we should take them apart and reconstruct them in a different grammatical form. Thus,--"Honesty, integrity and square-dealing will bring a man much better through life than a lack of these qualities which are almost essential to success."

DOUBLE NEGATIVE

It must be remembered that two negatives in the English language destroy each other and are equivalent to an affirmative. Thus "I _don't_ know _nothing_ about it" is intended to convey, that I am ignorant of the matter under consideration, but it defeats its own purpose, inasmuch as the use of nothing implies that I know something about it. The sentence should read--"I don't know anything about it."

Often we hear such expressions as "He was _not_ asked to give _no_ opinion," expressing the very opposite of what is intended. This sentence implies that he was asked to give his opinion. The double negative, therefore, should be carefully avoided, for it is insidious and is liable to slip in and the writer remain unconscious of its presence until the eye of the critic detects it.

FIRST PERSONAL PRONOUN

The use of the first personal pronoun should be avoided as much as possible in composition. Don't introduce it by way of apology and never use such expressions as "In my opinion," "As far as I can see," "It appears to me," "I believe," etc. In what you write, the whole composition is expressive of your views, since you are the author, therefore, there is no necessity for you to accentuate or emphasize yourself at certain portions of it.

Moreover, the big _I's_ savor of egotism! Steer clear of them as far as you can. The only place where the first person is permissible is in passages where you are stating a view that is not generally held and which is likely to meet with opposition.

SEQUENCE OF TENSES

When two verbs depend on each other their tenses must have a definite relation to each other. "I shall have much pleasure in accepting your kind invitation" is wrong, unless you really mean that just now you decline though by-and-by you intend to accept; or unless you mean that you do accept now, though you have no pleasure in doing so, but look forward to be more pleased by-and-by. In fact the sequence of the compound tenses puzzle experienced writers. The best plan is to go back in thought to the time in question and use the tense you would _then_ naturally use. Now in the sentence "I should have liked to have gone to see the circus" the way to find out the proper sequence is to ask yourself the question--what is it I "should have liked" to do? and the plain answer is "to go to see the circus." I cannot answer--"To have gone to see the circus" for that would imply that at a certain moment I would have liked to be in the position of having gone to the circus. But I do not mean this; I mean that at the moment at which I am speaking I wish I had gone to see the circus. The verbal phrase _I should have liked_ carries me back to the time when there was a chance of seeing the circus and once back at the time, the going to the circus is a thing of the present. This whole explanation resolves itself into the simple question,--what should I have liked _at that time_, and the answer is "to go to see the circus," therefore this is the proper sequence, and the expression should be "I should have liked to go to see the circus."

If we wish to speak of something relating to a time _prior_ to that indicated in the past tense we must use the perfect tense of the infinitive; as, "He appeared to have seen better days." We should say "I expected to _meet him_," not "I expected _to have met him_." "We intended _to visit you_," not "_to have visited_ you." "I hoped they _would_ arrive," not "I hoped they _would have_ arrived." "I thought I should _catch_ the bird," not "I thought I should _have caught_ the bird." "I had intended _to go_ to the meeting," not "I had intended to _have gone_ to the meeting."

BETWEEN--AMONG

These prepositions are often carelessly interchanged. _Between_ has reference to two objects only, _among_ to more than two. "The money was equally divided between them" is right when there are only two, but if there are more than two it should be "the money was equally divided among them."

LESS--FEWER

_Less_ refers is quantity, _fewer_ to number. "No man has _less_ virtues" should be "No man has _fewer_ virtues." "The farmer had some oats and a _fewer_ quantity of wheat" should be "the farmer had some oats and a _less_ quantity of wheat."

FURTHER--FARTHER

_Further_ is commonly used to denote quantity, _farther_ to denote distance. "I have walked _farther_ than you," "I need no _further_ supply" are correct.

EACH OTHER--ONE ANOTHER

_Each other_ refers to two, _one another_ to more than two. "Jones and Smith quarreled; they struck each other" is correct. "Jones, Smith and Brown quarreled; they struck one another" is also correct. Don't say, "The two boys teach one another" nor "The three girls love each other."

EACH, EVERY, EITHER, NEITHER

These words are continually misapplied. _Each_ can be applied to two or any higher number of objects to signify _every one_ of the number _independently_. Every requires _more than two_ to be spoken of and denotes all the _persons_ or _things_ taken _separately_. _Either_ denotes _one or the other of two_, and should not be used to include both. _Neither_ is the negative of either, denoting not the other, and not the one, and relating to _two persons_ or _things_ considered separately.

The following examples illustrate the correct usage of these words:

_Each_ man of the crew received a reward.

_Every_ man in the regiment displayed bravery.

We can walk on _either_ side of the street.

_Neither_ of the two is to blame.

NEITHER-NOR

When two singular subjects are connected by _neither_, _nor_ use a singular verb; as, "_Neither_ John _nor_ James _was there_," not _were_ there.

NONE

Custom Has sanctioned the use of this word both with a singular and plural; as--"None _is_ so blind as he who will not see" and "None _are_ so blind as they who will not see." However, as it is a contraction of _no one_ it is better to use the singular verb.

RISE-RAISE

These verbs are very often confounded. _Rise_ is to move or pass upward in any manner; as to "rise from bed;" to increase in value, to improve in position or rank, as "stocks rise;" "politicians rise;" "they have risen to honor."

_Raise_ is to lift up, to exalt, to enhance, as "I raise the table;" "He raised his servant;" "The baker raised the price of _bread_."

LAY-LIE

The transitive verb _lay_, and _lay_, the past tense of the neuter verb _lie_, are often confounded, though quite different in meaning. The neuter verb _to lie_, meaning to lie down or rest, cannot take the objective after it except with a preposition. We can say "He _lies_ on the ground," but we cannot say "He _lies_ the ground," since the verb is neuter and intransitive and, as such, cannot have a direct object. With _lay_ it is different. _Lay_ is a transitive verb, therefore it takes a direct object after it; as "I _lay_ a wager," "I _laid_ the carpet," etc.

Of a carpet or any inanimate subject we should say, "It lies on the floor," "A knife _lies_ on the table," not _lays_. But of a person we say--"He _lays_ the knife on the table," not "He _lies_----." _Lay_ being the past tense of the neuter to lie (down) we should say, "He _lay_ on the bed," and _lain_ being its past participle we must also say "He has _lain_ on the bed."

We can say "I lay myself down." "He laid himself down" and such expressions.

It is imperative to remember in using these verbs that to _lay_ means _to do_ something, and to lie means _to be in a state of rest_.

SAYS I--I SAID

_"Says I"_ is a vulgarism; don't use it. "I said" is correct form.

IN--INTO

Be careful to distinguish the meaning of these two little prepositions and don't interchange them. Don't say "He went _in_ the room" nor "My brother is _into_ the navy." _In_ denotes the place where a person or thing, whether at rest or in motion, is present; and _into_ denotes _entrance_. "He went _into_ the room;" "My brother is _in_ the navy" are correct.

EAT--ATE

Don't confound the two. _Eat_ is present, _ate_ is past. "I _eat_ the bread" means that I am continuing the eating; "I _ate_ the bread" means that the act of eating is past. _Eaten_ is the perfect participle, but often _eat_ is used instead, and as it has the same pronunciation (et) of _ate_, care should be taken to distinguish the past tense, I _ate_ from the perfect _I have eaten_ (_eat_).

SEQUENCE OF PERSON

Remember that the _first_ person takes precedence of the _second_ and the _second_ takes precedence of the _third_. When Cardinal Wolsey said _Ego et Rex_ (I and the King), he showed he was a good grammarian, but a bad courtier.

AM COME--HAVE COME

"_I am come_" points to my being here, while "I have come" intimates that I have just arrived. When the subject is not a person, the verb _to be_ should be used in preference to the verb _to have_; as, "The box is come" instead of "The box has come."

PAST TENSE--PAST PARTICIPLE

The interchange of these two parts of the irregular or so-called _strong_ verbs is, perhaps, the breach oftenest committed by careless speakers and writers. To avoid mistakes it is requisite to know the principal parts of these verbs, and this knowledge is very easy of acquirement, as there are not more than a couple of hundred of such verbs, and of this number but a small part is in daily use. Here are some of the most common blunders: "I seen" for "I saw;" "I done it" for "I did it;" "I drunk" for "I drank;" "I begun" for "I began;" "I rung" for "I rang;" "I run" for "I ran;" "I sung" for "I sang;" "I have chose" for "I have chosen;" "I have drove" for "I have driven;" "I have wore" for "I have worn;" "I have trod" for "I have trodden;" "I have shook" for "I have shaken;" "I have fell" for "I have fallen;" "I have drank" for "I have drunk;" "I have began" for "I have begun;" "I have rang" for "I have rung;" "I have rose" for "I have risen;" "I have spoke" for "I have spoken;" "I have broke" for "I have broken." "It has froze" for "It has frozen." "It has blowed" for "It has blown." "It has flowed" (of a bird) for "It has flown."

N. B.--The past tense and past participle of _To Hang_ is _hanged_ or _hung_. When you are talking about a man meeting death on the gallows, say "He was hanged"; when you are talking about the carcass of an animal say, "It was hung," as "The beef was hung dry." Also say your coat "_was_ hung on a hook."

PREPOSITIONS AND THE OBJECTIVE CASE

Don't forget that prepositions always take the objective case. Don't say "Between you and _I_"; say "Between you and _me_"

_Two_ prepositions should not govern _one objective_ unless there is an immediate connection between them. "He was refused admission to and forcibly ejected from the school" should be "He was refused admission to the school and forcibly ejected from it."

SUMMON--SUMMONS

Don't say "I shall summons him," but "I shall summon him." _Summon_ is a verb, _summons_, a noun.

It is correct to say "I shall get a _summons_ for him," not a _summon_.

UNDENIABLE--UNEXCEPTIONABLE

"My brother has an undeniable character" is wrong if I wish to convey the idea that he has a good character. The expression should be in that case "My brother has an unexceptionable character." An _undeniable_ character is a character that cannot be denied, whether bad or good. An unexceptionable character is one to which no one can take exception.

THE PRONOUNS

Very many mistakes occur in the use of the pronouns. "Let you and I go" should be "Let you and _me_ go." "Let them and we go" should be "Let them and us go." The verb let is transitive and therefore takes the objective case.

"Give me _them_ flowers" should be "Give me _those_ flowers"; "I mean _them_ three" should be "I mean those three." Them is the objective case of the personal pronoun and cannot be used adjectively like the demonstrative adjective pronoun. "I am as strong as _him_" should be "I am as strong as _he_"; "I am younger than _her_" should be "I am younger than _she_;" "He can write better than _me_" should be "He can write better than I," for in these examples the objective cases _him_, _her_ and _me_ are used wrongfully for the nominatives. After each of the misapplied pronouns a verb is understood of which each pronoun is the subject. Thus, "I am as strong as he (is)." "I am younger than she (is)." "He can write better than I (can)."

Don't say "_It is me_;" say "_It is I_" The verb _To Be_ of which is is a part takes the same case after it that it has before it. This holds good in all situations as well as with pronouns.

The verb _To Be_ also requires the pronouns joined to it to be in the same case as a pronoun asking a question; The nominative _I_ requires the nominative _who_ and the objectives _me_, _him_, _her_, _its_, _you_, _them_, require the objective _whom_.

"_Whom_ do you think I am?" should be "_Who_ do you think I am?" and "_Who_ do they suppose me to be?" should be "_Whom_ do they suppose me to be?" The objective form of the Relative should be always used, in connection with a preposition. "Who do you take me for?" should be "_Whom_ do, etc." "Who did you give the apple to?" should be "Whom did you give the apple to," but as pointed out elsewhere the preposition should never end a sentence, therefore, it is better to say, "To whom did you give the apple?"

After transitive verbs always use the objective cases of the pronouns. For "_He_ and _they_ we have seen," say "_Him_ and _them_ we have seen."

THAT FOR SO

"The hurt it was that painful it made him cry," say "so painful."

THESE--THOSE

Don't say, _These kind; those sort_. _Kind_ and _sort_ are each singular and require the singular pronouns _this_ and _that_. In connection with these demonstrative adjective pronouns remember that _this_ and _these_ refer to what is near at hand, _that_ and _those_ to what is more distant; as, _this book_ (near me), _that book_ (over there), _these_ boys (near), _those_ boys (at a distance).

THIS MUCH--THUS MUCH

"_This_ much is certain" should be "_Thus_ much or _so_ much is certain."

FLEE--FLY

These are two separate verbs and must not be interchanged. The principal parts of _flee_ are _flee_, _fled_, _fled_; those of _fly_ are _fly_, _flew_, _flown_. _To flee_ is generally used in the meaning of getting out of danger. _To fly_ means to soar as a bird. To say of a man "He _has flown_ from the place" is wrong; it should be "He _has fled_ from the place." We can say with propriety that "A bird has _flown_ from the place."

THROUGH--THROUGHOUT

Don't say "He is well known through the land," but "He is well known throughout the land."

VOCATION AND AVOCATION

Don't mistake these two words so nearly alike. Vocation is the employment, business or profession one follows for a living; avocation is some pursuit or occupation which diverts the person from such employment, business or profession. Thus

"His vocation was the law, his avocation, farming."

WAS--WERE

In the subjunctive mood the plural form _were_ should be used with a singular subject; as, "If I _were_," not _was_. Remember the plural form of the personal pronoun _you_ always takes _were_, though it may denote but one. Thus, "_You were_," never "_you was_." "_If I was him_" is a very common expression. Note the two mistakes in it,--that of the verb implying a condition, and that of the objective case of the pronoun. It should read _If I were he_. This is another illustration of the rule regarding the verb _To Be_, taking the same case after it as before it; _were_ is part of the verb _To Be_, therefore as the nominative (I) goes before it, the nominative (he) should come after it.

A OR AN

_A_ becomes an before a vowel or before _h_ mute for the sake of euphony or agreeable sound to the ear. _An apple_, _an orange_, _an heir_, _an honor_, etc.