Chapter 2

(1) "_While_ he was } _Walking_ on { (1) the road, } he fell." (2) "_Because_ he was } { (2) the ice, }

When the participle precedes the subject, it generally implies a cause: "_Seeing_ this, he retired." Otherwise it generally has its proper participial meaning, _e.g._ "He retired, _keeping_ his face towards us." If there is any ambiguity, write "_on_ seeing,"--"_at the same time_, or _while_, keeping."

(1) "_Though_ he was} {(1) he nevertheless stood } { his ground." (2) "_Since_ he was } _Struck_ with terror, {(2) he rapidly retreated." (3) "_If_ he is } {(3) he will soon retreat."

*8. When using the Relative Pronoun, use "who" and "which" where the meaning is "and he, it, &c.," "for he, it, &c." In other cases use "that," if euphony allows.*

"I heard this from the inspector, _who_ (and he) heard it from the guard _that_ travelled with the train."

"Fetch me (all) the books _that_ lie on the table, and also the pamphlets, _which_ (and these) you will find on the floor."

An adherence to this rule would remove much ambiguity. Thus: "There was a public-house next door, _which_ was a great nuisance," means "_and this_ (_i.e._ the fact of its being next door) was a great nuisance;" whereas _that_ would have meant "Next door was a public-house _that_ (_i.e._ the public-house) was a great nuisance." *"Who," "which," &c. introduce a new fact about the antecedent, whereas "that" introduces something without which the antecedent is incomplete or undefined.* Thus, in the first example above, "inspector" is complete in itself, and "who" introduces a new _fact_ about him; "guard" is incomplete, and requires "_that_ travelled with the train" to complete the meaning.

It is not, and cannot be, maintained that this rule, though observed in Elizabethan English, is observed by our best modern authors. (Probably a general impression that "that" cannot be used to refer to persons has assisted "who" in supplanting "that" as a relative.) But the convenience of the rule is so great that beginners in composition may with advantage adhere to the rule. The following are some of the cases where _who_ and _which_ are mostly used, contrary to the rule, instead of _that_.

*Exceptions:*--

(_a_) When the antecedent is defined, _e.g._ by a possessive case, modern English uses _who_ instead of _that_. It is rare, though it would be useful,[7] to say "His English friends _that_ had not seen him" for "the English friends, or those of his English friends, that had not seen him."

(_b_) _That_ sounds ill when separated from its verb and from its antecedents, and emphasized by isolation: "There are many persons _that_, though unscrupulous, are commonly good-tempered, and _that_, if not strongly incited by self-interest, are ready for the most part to think of the interest of their neighbours." Shakespeare frequently uses _who_ after _that_ when the relative is repeated. See "Shakespearian Grammar," par. 260.

(_c_) If the antecedent is qualified by _that_, the relative must not be _that_. Besides other considerations, the repetition is disagreeable. Addison ridicules such language as "_That_ remark _that_ I made yesterday is not _that_ _that_ I said _that_ I regretted _that_ I had made."

(_d_) _That_ cannot be preceded by a preposition, and hence throws the preposition to the end. "This is the rule _that_ I adhere _to_." This is perfectly good English, though sometimes unnecessarily avoided. But, with some prepositions, the construction is harsh and objectionable, _e.g._ "This is the mark _that_ I jumped _beyond_," "Such were the prejudices _that_ he rose _above_." The reason is that some of these disyllabic prepositions are used as adverbs, and, when separated from their nouns, give one the impression that they are used as adverbs.

(_e_) After pronominal adjectives used for personal pronouns, modern English prefers _who_. "There are many, others, several, those, _who_ can testify &c."

(_f_) After _that_ used as a conjunction there is sometimes a dislike to use _that_ as a relative. See (_c_).

*9. Do not use redundant "and" before "which."[8]*

"I gave him a very interesting book for a present, _and which_ cost me five shillings."

In short sentences the absurdity is evident, but in long sentences it is less evident, and very common.

"A petition was presented for rescinding that portion of the bye-laws which permits application of public money to support sectarian schools over which ratepayers have no control, this being a violation of the principle of civil and religious liberty, _and which_ the memorialists believe would provoke a determined and conscientious resistance."

Here _which_ ought grammatically to refer to "portion" or "schools." But it seems intended to refer to "violation." Omit "and," or repeat "a violation" before "which," or turn the sentence otherwise.

*10. Equivalents for Relative.*

*(_a_) Participle.*--"Men _thirsting_ (for 'men _that thirst_') for revenge are not indifferent to plunder." The objection to the participle is that here, as often, it creates a little ambiguity. The above sentence may mean, "men, _when_ they thirst," or "_though_ they thirst," as well as "men _that_ thirst." Often however there is no ambiguity: "I have documents _proving_ this conclusively."

*(_b_) Infinitive.*--Instead of "He was the first _that_ entered" you can write "_to_ enter;" for "He is not a man _who_ will act dishonestly," "_to_ act." This equivalent cannot often be used.

*(_c_) Whereby, wherein, &c.,* can sometimes be used for "by _which_," "in _which_," so as to avoid a harsh repetition of "_which_." "The means _whereby_ this may be effected." But this use is somewhat antiquated.

*(_d_) If.*--"The man _that_ does not care for music is to be pitied" can be written (though not so forcibly), "_If_ a man does not care for music, he is to be pitied." It is in long sentences that this equivalent will be found most useful.

*(_e_) And this.*--"He did his best, _which_ was all that could be expected," can be written, "_and this_ was all that, &c."

*(_f_) What.*--"Let me repeat _that which_[9] you ought to know, that _that which_ is worth doing is worth doing well." "Let me repeat, _what_ you ought to know, that _what_ is worth doing is worth doing well."

*(_g_) Omission of Relative.*--It is sometimes thought ungrammatical to omit the relative, as in "The man (that) you speak of." On the contrary, _that_ when an object (not when a subject) may be omitted, wherever the antecedent and the subject of the relative sentence are brought into juxtaposition by the omission.

*10 a'. Repeat the Antecedent in some new form, where there is any ambiguity.* This is particularly useful after a negative: "He said that he would not even hear me, _which_ I confess I had expected." Here the meaning may be, "I had expected that he would," or "that he would not, hear me." Write, "_a refusal_, or, _a favour_, that I confess I had expected." See (38).

*11. Use particular for general terms.*--This is a most important rule. Instead of "I have neither the necessaries of life nor the means of procuring them," write (if you can _with truth_), "I have not a crust of bread, nor a penny to buy one."

CAUTION.--There is a danger in this use. The meaning is vividly expressed but sometimes may be exaggerated or imperfect. _Crust of bread_ may be an exaggeration; on the other hand, if the speaker is destitute not only of bread, but also of shelter and clothing, then _crust of bread_ is an imperfect expression of the meaning.

In philosophy and science, where the language ought very often to be inclusive and brief, general and not particular terms must be used.

*11 a. Avoid Verbal Nouns where Verbs can be used instead.* The disadvantage of the use of Verbal Nouns is this, that, unless they are immediately preceded by prepositions, they are sometimes liable to be confounded with participles. The following is an instance of an excessive use of Verbal Nouns:

"The pretended confession of the secretary was only collusion to lay the jealousies of the king's _favouring_ popery, which still hung upon him, notwithstanding his _writing_ on the Revelation, and _affecting_ to enter on all occasions into controversy, _asserting_ in particular that the Pope was Antichrist."

Write "notwithstanding that he wrote and affected &c."

*12. Use a particular Person instead of a class.*

"What is the splendour of _the greatest monarch_ compared with the beauty of _a flower_?" "What is the splendour of Solomon compared with the beauty of a daisy?"

Under this head may come the forcible use of Noun for Adjective: "This fortress is _weakness_ itself."

An excess of this use is lengthy and pedantically bombastic, _e.g._, the following paraphrase for "in every British colony:"--"under Indian palm-groves, amid Australian gum-trees, in the shadow of African mimosas, and beneath Canadian pines."

*13. Use Metaphor instead of literal statement.*

"The ship _ploughs_ the sea" is clearer than "the ship _cleaves_ the sea," and shorter than "the ship _cleaves_ the sea _as a plough cleaves the land_."

Of course there are some subjects for which Metaphor should not be used. See (14 _a_) and (14 _b_).

*14. Do not confuse Metaphor.*

"In a moment the thunderbolt was upon them, _deluging_ their country with invaders."

The following is attributed to Sir Boyle Roche: "Mr. Speaker, I smell a rat, I see him brewing in the air; but, mark me, I shall yet nip him in the bud."

Some words, once metaphorical, have ceased to be so regarded. Hence many good writers say "_under_ these _circumstances_" instead of "_in_ these circumstances."

An excessive regard for disused metaphor savours of pedantry: disregard is inelegant. Write, not, "_unparalleled_ complications," but "_unprecedented_ complications;" and "_he threw light on_ obscurities," instead of "_he unravelled_ obscurities."

*14 a. Do not introduce literal statement immediately after Metaphor.*

"He was the father of Chemistry, and brother to the Earl of Cork."

"He was a very thunderbolt of war, And was lieutenant to the Earl of Mar."

*14 b. Do not use poetic metaphor to illustrate a prosaic subject.* Thus, we may say "a poet _soars_," or even, though rarely, "a nation _soars_ to greatness," but you could not say "Consols _soared to_ 94-1/2." Even commonplace subjects may be illustrated by metaphor: for it is a metaphor, and quite unobjectionable, to say "Consols _mounted_, or _jumped_ to 94-1/2." But commonplace subjects must be illustrated by metaphor that is commonplace.

ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE.

*15. Emphatic words must stand in emphatic positions; i.e. for the most part, at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.* This rule occasionally supersedes the common rules about position. Thus, the place for an adverb, as a rule, should be between the subject and verb: "He _quickly_ left the room;" but if _quickly_ is to be emphatic, it must come at the beginning or end, as in "I told him to leave the room slowly, but he left _quickly_."

Adjectives, in clauses beginning with "if" and "though," often come at the beginning for emphasis: "_Insolent_ though he was, he was silenced at last."

*15 a. Unemphatic words must, as a rule, be kept from the end of the sentence.* It is a common fault to break this rule by placing a short and unemphatic predicate at the end of a long sentence.

"To know some Latin, even if it be nothing but a few Latin roots, _is useful_." Write, "It is useful, &c."

So "the evidence proves how kind to his inferiors _he is_."

Often, where an adjective or auxiliary verb comes at the end, the addition of an emphatic adverb justifies the position, _e.g._ above, "is _very_ useful," "he has _invariably_ been."

A short "chippy" ending, even though emphatic, is to be avoided. It is abrupt and unrhythmical, _e.g._ "The soldier, transfixed with the spear, _writhed_." We want a _longer_ ending, "fell writhing to the ground," or, "writhed in the agonies of death." A "chippy" ending is common in bad construing from Virgil.

*Exceptions.*--Prepositions and pronouns attached to emphatic words need not be moved from the end; _e.g._ "He does no harm that I hear _of_." "Bear witness how I loved _him_."

*N.B. In all styles, especially in letter-writing, a final emphasis must not be so frequent as to become obtrusive and monotonous.*

*15 b. An interrogation sometimes gives emphasis.* "No one can doubt that the prisoner, had he been really guilty, would have shown some signs of remorse," is not so emphatic as "Who can doubt, Is it possible to doubt, &c.?"

Contrast "No one ever names Wentworth without thinking of &c." with "But Wentworth,--who ever names him without thinking of those harsh dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the majesty of an antique Jupiter?"

*16. The subject, if unusually emphatic, should often be removed from the beginning of the sentence.* The beginning of the sentence is an emphatic position, though mostly not so emphatic as the end. Therefore the principal subject of a sentence, being emphatic, and being wanted early in the sentence to tell us what the sentence is about, comes as a rule, at or near the beginning: "_Thomas_ built this house."

Hence, since the beginning is the _usual_ place for the subject, if we want to emphasize "Thomas" _unusually_, we must remove "Thomas" from the beginning: "This house was built by _Thomas_," or "It was _Thomas_ that built this house."

Thus, the emphasis on "conqueror" is not quite so strong in "_A mere conqueror_ ought not to obtain from us the reverence that is due to the great benefactors of mankind," as in "We ought not to bestow the reverence that is due to the great benefactors of mankind, _upon a mere conqueror_." Considerable, but less emphasis and greater smoothness (19) will be obtained by writing the sentence thus: "We ought not to bestow upon a mere conqueror &c."

Where the same subject stands first in several consecutive sentences, it rises in emphasis, and need not be removed from the beginning, even though unusual emphasis be required:

"The captain was the life and soul of the expedition. _He_ first pointed out the possibility of advancing; _he_ warned them of the approaching scarcity of provisions; _he_ showed how they might replenish their exhausted stock &c."

*17. The object is sometimes placed before the verb for emphasis.* This is most common in antithesis. "_Jesus_ I know, and _Paul_ I know; but who are ye?" "_Some_ he imprisoned, _others_ he put to death."

Even where there is no antithesis the inversion is not uncommon:

"Military _courage_, the boast of the sottish German, of the frivolous and prating Frenchman, of the romantic and arrogant Spaniard, he neither possesses nor values."

This inversion sometimes creates ambiguity in poetry, _e.g._ "The son the father slew," and must be sparingly used in prose.

Sometimes the position of a word may be considered appropriate by some, and inappropriate by others, according to different interpretations of the sentence. Take as an example, "Early in the morning the nobles and gentlemen who attended on the king assembled in the great hall of the castle; and here they began to talk of what a dreadful storm it had been the night before. But Macbeth could scarcely understand what they said, for he was thinking of something worse." The last sentence has been amended by Professor Bain into "_What they said_, Macbeth could scarcely understand." But there appears to be an antithesis between the guiltless nobles who can think about the weather, and the guilty Macbeth who cannot. Hence, "what they said" ought not, and "Macbeth" ought, to be emphasized: and therefore "Macbeth" ought to be retained at the beginning of the sentence.

The same author alters, "The praise of judgment Virgil has justly contested with him, but his invention remains yet unrivalled," into "Virgil has justly contested with him the praise of judgment, but no one has yet rivalled his invention"--an alteration which does not seem to emphasize sufficiently the antithesis between what had been 'contested,' on the one hand, and what remained as yet 'unrivalled' on the other.

More judiciously Professor Bain alters, "He that tells a lie is not sensible how great a task he undertakes; for he must be forced to invent twenty more to maintain one," into "for, to maintain one, he must invent twenty more," putting the emphatic words in their emphatic place, at the end.

*18. Where several words are emphatic, make it clear which is the most emphatic.* Thus, in "The state was made, under the pretence of serving it, in reality the prize of their contention to each of these opposite parties," it is unpleasantly doubtful whether the writer means (1) _state_ or (2) _parties_ to be emphatic.

If (1), "As for the _state_, these two parties, under the pretence of serving it, converted it into a prize for their contention." If (2), write, "Though served in profession, the state was in reality converted into a prize for their contention by these two _parties_." In (1) _parties_ is subordinated, in (2) _state_.

Sometimes the addition of some intensifying word serves to emphasize. Thus, instead of "To effect this they used all devices," we can write "To effect this they used _every conceivable device_." So, if we want to emphasize fidelity in "The business will task your skill and fidelity," we can write "Not only your skill _but also_ your fidelity." This, however, sometimes leads to exaggerations. See (2).

Sometimes antithesis gives emphasis, as in "You _do_ not know this, but you _shall_ know it." Where antithesis cannot be used, the emphasis must be expressed by turning the sentence, as "I _will make you_ know it," or by some addition, as "You shall _hereafter_ know it."

*19. Words should be as near as possible to the words with which they are grammatically connected.* See Paragraphs 20 to 29. For exceptions see 30.

*20. Adverbs should be placed next to the words they are intended to affect.* When unemphatic, adverbs come between the subject and the verb, or, if the tense is compound, between the parts of the compound tense: "He _quickly_ left the room;" "He has _quickly_ left the room;" but, when emphatic, after the verb: "He left, or has left, the room _quickly_."[10] When such a sentence as the latter is followed by a present participle, there arises ambiguity. "I told him to go slowly, but he left the room _quickly_, dropping the purse on the floor." Does _quickly_ here modify _left_ or _dropping_? The remedy[11] is, to give the adverb its unemphatic place, "He _quickly_ left the room, dropping &c.," or else to avoid the participle, thus: "He _quickly_ dropped the purse and left the room," or "He dropped the purse and _quickly_ left the room."

*21. "Only" requires careful use. The strict[12] rule is, that "only" should be placed before the word affected by it.*

The following is ambiguous:

"The heavens are not open to the faithful _only_ at intervals."

The best rule is to avoid placing "only" between two emphatic words, and to avoid using "only" where "alone" can be used instead.

In strictness perhaps the three following sentences:

(1) He _only_ beat three,

(2) He beat _only_ three,

(3) He beat three _only_, ought to be explained, severally, thus:

(1) He did no more than beat, did not kill, three.

(2) He beat no more than three.

(3) He beat three, and that was all he did. (Here _only_ modifies the whole of the sentence and depreciates the action.)

But the best authors sometimes transpose the word. "He _only_ lived" ought to mean "he did not die or make any great sacrifice;" but "He _only_ lived but till he was a man" (_Macbeth_, v. 8. 40) means "He lived _only_ till he was a man." Compare also, "Who _only_ hath immortality."

_Only_ at the beginning of a statement = _but_. "I don't like to importune you, _only_ I know you'll forgive me." Before an imperative it diminishes the favour asked: "_Only_ listen to me." This use of _only_ is mostly confined to letters.

Very often, _only_ at the beginning of a sentence is used for _alone_: "_Only_ ten came," "_Only_ Cæsar approved." _Alone_ is less ambiguous. The ambiguity of _only_ is illustrated by such a sentence as, "Don't hesitate to bring a few friends of yours to shoot on my estate at any time. _Only_ five (fifteen) came yesterday," which might mean, "I don't mind a _few_; _only_ don't bring so many as _fifteen_;" or else "Don't hesitate to bring a few _more_; no more than _five_ came yesterday." In conversation, ambiguity is prevented by emphasis; but in a letter, _only_ thus used might cause unfortunate mistakes. Write "Yesterday _only_ five came," if you mean "no more than five."

*22. When "not only" precedes "but also," see that each is followed by the same part of speech.*

"He _not only_ gave me advice _but also_ help" is wrong. Write "He gave me, _not only_ advice, _but also_ help." On the other hand, "He _not only_ gave me a grammar, _but also_ lent me a dictionary," is right. Take an instance. "He spoke _not only_ forcibly _but also_ tastefully (adverbs), and this too, _not only_ before a small audience, _but also_ in (prepositions) a large public meeting, and his speeches were _not only_ successful, _but also_ (adjective) worthy of success."

*23. "At least," "always," and other adverbial adjuncts, sometimes produce ambiguity.*

"I think you will find my Latin exercise, _at all events_, as good as my cousin's." Does this mean (1) "my Latin exercise, though not perhaps my other exercises;" or (2), "Though not very good, yet, at all events, as good as my cousin's"? Write for (1), "My Latin exercise, at all events, you will find &c." and for (2), "I think you will find my Latin exercise as good as my cousin's, at all events."

The remedy is to avoid placing "at all events" between two emphatic words.

As an example of the misplacing of an adverbial adjunct, take "From abroad he received most favourable reports, but in the City he heard that a panic had broken out on the Exchange, and that the funds were fast falling." This ought to mean that the "hearing," and not (as is intended) that the "breaking out of the panic," took place in the City.

In practice, an adverb is often used to qualify a remote word, where the latter is _more emphatic than any nearer word_. This is very common when the Adverbial Adjunct is placed in an emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence: "_On this very spot_ our guide declared that Claverhouse had fallen."

*24. Nouns should be placed near the nouns that they define.* In the very common sentence "The death is announced of Mr. John Smith, an author whose works &c.," the transposition is probably made from a feeling that, if we write "The death of Mr. John Smith is announced," we shall be obliged to begin a new sentence, "He was an author whose works &c." But the difficulty can be removed by writing "We regret to announce, or, we are informed of, the death of Mr. John Smith, an author, &c."

*25. Pronouns should follow the nouns to which they refer without the intervention of another noun.* Avoid, "John Smith, the son of Thomas Smith, _who_ gave me this book," unless _Thomas Smith_ is the antecedent of _who_. Avoid also "John supplied Thomas with money: _he_ (John) was very well off."