Chapter 10

The position of the adverb should be as near as possible to the word it qualifies. Sometimes we place it before the auxiliary and sometimes after it, according to the thought we wish to express. The difference between "The fish should _properly_ be broiled" and "The fish should be _properly_ broiled" is apparent at a glance. "The colon may be _properly_ used in the following cases": should be, "may _properly_ be used." "This mode of expression _rather suits_ a familiar than a grave style": should be, "suits a familiar _rather than_ a grave style." "It is a frequent error _in the writings even_ of some good authors": should be, "in the writings of _even some good_ authors." "_Both_ the circumstances of contingency and futurity are necessary": should be, "The circumstances of contingency and futurity are _both_ necessary." "He has made charges ... which he has failed _utterly_ to sustain."--"New York Tribune." Here it is uncertain at first sight which verb the adverb is intended to qualify; but the nature of the case makes it probable that the writer meant "has utterly failed to sustain."

MISTAKEN. "If I am not _mistaken_, you are in the wrong": say, "If I _mistake not_." "I tell you, you are _mistaken_." Here _mistaken_ means, "You are wrong; you do not understand"; but it might be taken to mean, "I _mistake you_." For "you are _mistaken_," say, "you _mistake_." If, as Horace and Professor Davidson aver, usage in language makes right, then the grammarians ought long ago to have invented some theory upon which the locution _you are mistaken_ could be defended. Until they do invent such a theory, it will be better to say _you mistake_, _he mistakes_, and so on; or _you are_, or _he is_--as the case may be--_in error_.

MORE PERFECT. Such expressions as, "the _more_ perfect of the two," "the _most_ perfect thing of the kind I have ever seen," "the _most_ complete cooking-stove ever invented," and the like, can not be defended logically, as nothing can be more perfect than perfection, or more complete than completeness. Still such phrases are, and probably will continue to be, used by good writers.

MOST. "Everybody abuses this word," says Mr. Gould in his "Good English"; and then, in another paragraph, he adds: "If a man would cross out _most_ wherever he can find it in any book in the English language, he would in _al_most every instance improve the style of the book." That this statement may appear within bounds, he gives many examples from good authors, some of which are the following: "a _most_ profound silence"; "a _most_ just idea"; "a _most_ complete orator"; "this was _most_ extraordinary"; "an object of _most_ perfect esteem"; "a _most_ extensive erudition"; "he gave it _most_ liberally away"; "it is, _most_ assuredly, not because I value his services least"; "would _most_ seriously affect us"; "that such a system must _most_ widely and _most_ powerfully," etc.; "it is _most_ effectually nailed to the counter"; "it is _most_ undeniable that," etc.

This word is much, and very erroneously, used for _almost_. "He comes here _most_ every day." The user of such a sentence as this means to say that he comes _nearly_ every day, but he _really says_, if he says anything, that he comes more every day than he does every night. In such sentences _almost_, and not _most_, is the word to use.

MUTUAL. This word is much misused in the phrase "our _mutual_ friend." Macaulay says: "_Mutual_ friend is a low vulgarism for _common_ friend." _Mutual_ properly relates to two persons, and implies reciprocity of sentiment--sentiment, be it what it may, received and returned. Thus, we say properly, "John and James have a _mutual_ affection, or a _mutual_ aversion," i. e., they like or dislike each other; or, "John and James are _mutually_ dependent," i. e., they are dependent on each other. In using the word _mutual_, care should be taken not to add the words _for each other_ or _on each other_, the thought conveyed by these words being already expressed in the word _mutual_. "Dependent on each other" is the exact equivalent of "mutually dependent"; hence, saying that John and James are _mutually_ dependent _on each other_ is as redundant in form as it would be to say that the editors of "The Great Vilifier" are the biggest, greatest mud-slingers in America.

MYSELF. This form of the personal pronoun is properly used in the nominative case only where _increased emphasis_ is aimed at.

"I had as lief not be as live to be In awe of such a thing as I _myself_."

"I will do it _myself_," "I saw it _myself_." It is, therefore, incorrect to say, "Mrs. Brown and myself were both very much pleased."

NAME. This word is sometimes improperly used for _mention_; thus, "I never _named_ the matter to any one": should be, "I never _mentioned_ the matter to any one."

NEIGHBORHOOD. See VICINITY.

NEITHER. See EITHER.

NEITHER--NOR. "He would _neither_ give wine, _nor_ oil, _nor_ money."--Thackeray. The conjunction should be placed before the excluded object; "neither _give_" implies neither some other _verb_, a meaning not intended. Rearrange thus, taking all the common parts of the contracted sentences together: "He would give _neither_ wine, _nor_ oil, _nor_ money." So, "She can _neither_ help her beauty, _nor_ her courage, _nor_ her cruelty" (Thackeray), should be, "She can help _neither_," etc. "He had _neither_ time to intercept _nor_ to stop her" (Scott), should be, "He had time _neither_ to intercept," etc. "Some _neither_ can for wits _nor_ critics pass" (Pope), should be, "Some can _neither_ for wits _nor_ critics pass."

NEVER. Grammarians differ with regard to the correctness of using _never_ in such sentences as, "He is in error, though _never_ so wise," "Charm he _never_ so wisely." In sentences like these, to say the least, it is better, in common with the great majority of writers, to use _ever_.

NEW. This adjective is often misplaced. "He has a _new_ suit of clothes and a _new_ pair of gloves." It is not the _suit_ and the _pair_ that are new, but the _clothes_ and the _gloves_.

NICE. Archdeacon Hare remarks of the use, or rather misuse, of this word: "That stupid vulgarism by which we use the word _nice_ to denote almost every mode of approbation, for almost every variety of quality, and, from sheer poverty of thought, or fear of saying anything definite, wrap up everything indiscriminately in this characterless domino, speaking at the same breath of a _nice_ cheese-cake, a _nice_ tragedy, a _nice_ sermon, a _nice_ day, a _nice_ country, as if a universal deluge of _niaiserie_--for _nice_ seems originally to have been only _niais_--had whelmed the whole island." Nice is as good a word as any other in its place, but its place is not everywhere. We talk very properly about a _nice_ distinction, a _nice_ discrimination, a _nice_ calculation, a _nice_ point, and about a person's being _nice_, and over-_nice_, and the like; but we certainly ought not to talk about "Othello's" being a _nice_ tragedy, about Salvini's being a _nice_ actor, or New York bay's being a _nice_ harbor.[23]

NICELY. The very quintessence of popinjay vulgarity is reached when _nicely_ is made to do service for _well_, in this wise: "How do you do?" "_Nicely_." "How are you?" "_Nicely_."

NO. This word of negation is responded to by _nor_ in sentences like this: "Let your meaning be obscure, and _no_ grace of diction _nor_ any music of well-turned sentences will make amends."

"Whether he is there or _no_." Supply the ellipsis, and we have, "Whether he is there or _no_ there." Clearly, the word to use in sentences like this is not _no_, but _not_. And yet our best writers sometimes inadvertently use _no_ with _whether_. Example: "But perhaps some people are quite indifferent _whether_ or _no_ it is said," etc.--Richard Grant White, in "Words and Their Uses," p. 84. Supply the ellipsis, and we have, "said or _no_ said." In a little book entitled "Live and Learn," I find, "No _less_ than fifty persons were there; No _fewer_," etc. In correcting one mistake, the writer himself makes one. It should be, "_Not_ fewer," etc. If we ask, "There were fifty persons there, were there or were there _not_?" the reply clearly would be, "There were _not_ fewer than fifty." "There was _no_ one of them who would not have been proud," etc., should be, "There was _not_ one of them."

NOT. The correlative of _not_, when it stands in the first member of a sentence, is _nor_ or _neither_. "_Not_ for thy ivory _nor_ thy gold will I unbind thy chain." "I will _not_ do it, _neither_ shall you."

The wrong placing of _not_ often gives rise to an imperfect negation; thus, "John and James were _not_ there," means that John and James were not there _in company_. It does not exclude the presence of one of them. The negative should precede in this case: "Neither John _nor_ James was there." "Our company was _not_ present" (as a company, but some of us might have been), should be, "No member of our company was present."

NOT--BUT ONLY. "Errors frequently arise in the use of _not_--but _only_, to understand which we must attend to the force of the whole expression. 'He did _not_ pretend to extirpate French music, _but only_ to cultivate and civilize it.' Here the _not_ is obviously misplaced. 'He pretended, or professed, _not_ to extirpate.'"--Bain.

NOTORIOUS. Though this word can not be properly used in any but a bad sense, we sometimes see it used instead of _noted_, which may be used in either a good or a bad sense. _Notorious_ characters are always persons to be shunned, whereas _noted_ characters may or may not be persons to be shunned.

"This is the tax a man must pay for his virtues--they hold up a torch to his vices and render those frailties _notorious_ in him which would pass without observation in another."--Lacon.

NOVICE. See AMATEUR.

NUMBER. It is not an uncommon thing for a pronoun in the plural number to be used in connection with an antecedent in the singular. At present, the following notice may be seen in some of our Broadway omnibuses: "Fifty dollars reward for the conviction of any person caught collecting or keeping fares given to _them_ to deposit in the box." Should be, to _him_. "A person may be very near-sighted if _they_ can not recognize an acquaintance ten feet off." Should be, if _he_.

The verb _to be_ is often used in the singular instead of in the plural; thus, "There _is_ several reasons why it would be better": say, _are_. "How many _is_ there?" say, _are_. "There _is_ four": say, _are_. "_Was_ there many?" say, _were_. "No matter how many there _was_": say, _were_.

A verb should agree in number with its subject, and not with its predicate. We say, for example, "Death _is_ the wages of sin," and "The wages of sin _are_ death."

"When singular nouns connected by _and_ are preceded by _each_, _every_, or _no_, the verb must be singular." We say, for example, "_Each_ boy and _each_ girl _studies_." "_Every_ leaf, and _every_ twig, and _every_ drop of water _teems_ with life." "_No_ book and _no_ paper _was_ arranged."

_Each_ being singular, a pronoun or verb to agree with it must also be singular; thus, "Let them depend each on _his_ own exertions"; "Each city has _its_ peculiar privileges"; "Everybody has a right to look after _his_ own interest."

Errors are often the result of not repeating the verb; thus, "Its significance is as varied as the passions": correctly, "as _are_ the passions." "The words are as incapable of analysis as the thing signified": correctly, "as _is_ the thing signified."

OBSERVE. The dictionaries authorize the use of this word as a synonym of _say_ and _remark_; as, for example, "What did you _observe_?" for "What did you _say_, or _remark_?" In this sense, however, it is better to leave _observe_ to the exclusive use of those who delight in being fine.

O'CLOCK. "It is a quarter _to_ ten o'clock." What does this statement mean, literally? We _understand_ by it that it lacks a quarter of ten, i. e., of being ten; but it does not really mean that. Inasmuch as _to_ means toward, it _really_ means a quarter after nine. We should say, then, a quarter _of_, which means, literally, a quarter _out of_ ten.

OF ALL OTHERS. "The vice of covetousness, _of all others_, enters deepest into the soul." This sentence says that covetousness is one of the _other_ vices. A thing can not be _another_ thing, nor can it be one of a number of _other_ things. The sentence should be, "Of all the vices, covetousness enters deepest into the soul"; or, "The vice of covetousness, of all the vices, enters," etc.; or, "The vice of covetousness, _above_ all others, enters," etc.

OF ANY. This phrase is often used when _of all_ is meant; thus, "This is the largest _of any_ I have seen." Should be, "the largest _of all_," etc.

OFF OF. In such sentences as, "Give me a yard _off of_ this piece of calico," either the _off_ or the _of_ is vulgarly superfluous. The sentence would be correct with either one, but not with both of them. "The apples fell _off of_ the tree": read, "fell _off_ the tree."

OFTEN. This adverb is properly compared by changing its termination: often, oftener, oftenest. Why some writers use _more_ and _most_ to compare it, it is not easy to see; this mode of comparing it is certainly not euphonious.

OH--O. It is only the most careful writers who use these two interjections with proper discrimination. The distinction between them is said to be modern. _Oh_ is simply an exclamation, and should always be followed by some mark of punctuation, usually by an exclamation point. "Oh! you are come at last." "Oh, help him, you sweet heavens!" "Oh, woe is me!" "Oh! I die, Horatio." _O_, in addition to being an exclamation, denotes a calling to or adjuration; thus, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth!" "O grave, where is thy victory?" "O heavenly powers, restore him!" "O shame! where is thy blush?"

OLDER--ELDER. "He is the _older_ man of the two, and the _oldest_ in the neighborhood." "He is the _elder_ of the two sons, and the _eldest_ of the family." "The _elder_ son is heir to the estate; he is _older_ than his brother by ten years."

ON TO. We get _on_ a chair, _on_ an omnibus, _on_ a stump, and _on_ a spree, and not on _to_.

ONE. Certain pronouns of demonstrative signification are called indefinite because they refer to no particular subject. This is one of them. If we were putting a supposition by way of argument or illustration, we might say, "Suppose _I_ were to lose my way in a wood"; or, "Suppose _you_ were to lose your way in a wood"; or, "Suppose _one_ were to lose _one's_ way in a wood." All these forms are used, but, as a rule, the last is to be preferred. The first verges on egotism, and the second makes free with another's person, whereas the third is indifferent. "If _one's_ honesty were impeached, what should _one_ do?" is more courtly than to take either one's self or the person addressed for the example.

_One_ should be followed by _one_, and not by _he_. "The better acquainted _one_ is with any kind of rhetorical trick, the less liable _he_ is to be misled by it." Should be, "the less liable _one_ is to be misled by it."

In the phrase, "any of the little _ones_," _one_ is the numeral employed in the manner of a pronoun, by indicating something that has gone before, or, perhaps, has to come after. "I like peaches, but I must have a ripe _one_, or ripe _ones_."

Professor Bain says, in his "Composition Grammar":

"This pronoun continually lands writers in difficulties. English idiom requires that, when the pronoun has to be again referred to, it should be used itself a second time. The correct usage is shown by Pope: '_One_ may be ashamed to consume half _one's_ days in bringing sense and rhyme together.' It would be against idiom to say 'half _his_ days.'

"Still, the repetition of the pronoun is often felt to be heavy, and writers have recourse to various substitutions. Even an ear accustomed to the idiom can scarcely accept with unmixed pleasure this instance from Browning:

"'Alack! _one_ lies _oneself_ Even in the stating that _one's_ end was truth, Truth only, if _one_ states so much in words.'

"The representative 'I' or 'we' occasionally acts the part of 'one.' The following sentence presents a curious alternation of 'we' with 'one'--possibly not accidental (George Eliot): 'It's a desperately vexatious thing that, after all _one's_ reflections and quiet determinations, _we_ should be ruled by moods that _one_ can't calculate on beforehand.' By the use of 'we' here, a more pointed reference is suggested, while the vagueness actually remains.

"Fenimore Cooper, like Scott, is not very particular; an example may be quoted: 'Modesty is a poor man's wealth; but, as _we_ grow substantial in the world, patroon, _one_ can afford to begin to speak truth of _himself_ as well as of _his_ neighbor.' Were Cooper a careful writer, we might persuade ourselves that he chose 'we' and 'one' with a purpose: 'we' might indicate that the speaker had himself and the patroon directly in his eye, although at the same time he wanted to put it generally; and 'one' might hint that modesty succeeded in getting the better of him. But 'himself' and 'his' would alone show that such speculations are too refined for the occasion.

"The form 'a man,' which was at one time common, seems to be reviving. In 'Adam Bede' we have, '_A man_ can never do anything at variance with his own nature.' We might substitute 'one.'

"'Men' was more frequent in good writing formerly than now. 'Neither do _men_ light a candle, and put it under a bushel.' 'Do _men_ gather grapes of thorns?' Hume is fond of expressing a general subject by 'men.'

"'Small birds are much more exposed to the cold than large _ones_.' This usage is hardly 'indefinite'; and it needs no further exemplification."

ONLY. This word, when used as an adjective, is more frequently misplaced than any other word in the language. Indeed, I am confident that it is not correctly placed half the time, either in conversation or in writing. Thus, "In its pages, papers of sterling merit [only] will _only_ appear" (Miss Braddon); "Things are getting dull down in Texas; they _only_ shot [only] three men down there last week"; "I have _only_ got [only] three." _Only_ is sometimes improperly used for _except_ or _unless_; thus, "The trains will not stop _only_ when the bell rings." The meaning here is clearly "_except_ when the bell rings."

Dr. Bain, in his "Higher English Grammar," speaking of the order of words, says:

"The word requiring most attention is _only_.

"According to the position of _only_, the same words may be made to express very different meanings.

"'He _only_ lived for their sakes.' Here _only_ must be held as qualifying '_lived_ for their sakes,' the emphasis being on _lived_, the word immediately adjoining. The meaning then is 'he _lived_,' but did not _work_, did not _die_, did not do any other thing for their sakes.

"'He lived _only_ for their sakes.' _Only_ now qualifies 'for their sakes,' and the sentence means he lived for this one reason, namely, for their sakes, and not for any other reason.

"'He lived for their sakes _only_.' The force of the word when placed at the end is peculiar. Then it often has a diminutive or disparaging signification. 'He lived for their sakes,' and not for any more worthy reason. 'He gave sixpence _only_,' is an insinuation that more was expected.

"By the use of _alone_, instead of _only_, other meanings are expressed. 'He _alone_ lived for their sakes'; that is, _he, and nobody else_, did so. 'He lived for their sakes _alone_,' or, 'for the sake of them _alone_'; that is, not for the sake of any other persons. 'It was _alone_ by the help of the Confederates that any such design could be carried out.' Better _only_.

"'When men grow virtuous in their old age, they _only_ make a sacrifice to God of the devil's leavings.'--Pope. Here _only_ is rightly placed. 'Think _only_ of the past as its remembrance gives you pleasure,' should be, 'think of the past, _only_ as its remembrance,' etc. 'As he did not leave his name, it was _only_ known that a gentleman had called on business': it was known _only_. 'I can _only_ refute the accusation by laying before you the whole': this would mean, 'the only thing I am able to do is to refute; I may not retaliate, or let it drop, I must _refute_ it.' 'The negroes are to appear at church _only_ in boots'; that is, when the negroes go to church they are to have no clothing but boots. 'The negroes are to appear _only_ at church in boots' might mean that they are not to appear anywhere but at church, whether in boots or out of them. The proper arrangement would be to connect the adverbial adjunct, _in boots_, with its verb, _appear_, and to make _only_ qualify _at church_ and no more: 'the negroes are to appear in boots _only_ at church.'"

It thus appears very plain that we should look well to our _onlys_.

OUGHT--SHOULD. These two words, though they both imply obligation, should not be used indiscriminately. _Ought_ is the stronger term; what we _ought_ to do, we are morally bound to do. We _ought_ to be truthful and honest, and _should_ be respectful to our elders and kind to our inferiors.

OVERFLOWN. _Flown_ is the past participle of _to fly_, and _flowed_ of _to flow_. As, therefore, a river does not _fly_ over its banks, but _flows_ over them, we should say of it that it has over_flowed_, and not that it has over_flown_.

OVERLY. This word is now used only by the unschooled.

OWING. See DUE.

PANTS. This abbreviation is not used by those who are careful in the choice of words. The purist does not use the word _pantaloons_ even, but _trousers_. _Pants_ are worn by _gents_ who eat _lunches_ and _open_ wine, and _trousers_ are worn by _gentlemen_ who eat _luncheons_ and _order_ wine.

PARAPHERNALIA. This is a law term. In Roman law, it meant the goods which a woman brought to her husband besides her dowry. In English law, it means the goods which a woman is allowed to have after the death of her husband, besides her dower, consisting of her apparel and ornaments suitable to her rank. When used in speaking of the affairs of every-day life, it is generally misused.

PARLOR. This word, in the sense of _drawing-room_, according to Dr. Hall, except in the United States and some of the English colonies, is obsolete.

PARTAKE. This is a very fine word to use for _eat_; just the word for young women who hobble on French heels.

PARTIALLY--PARTLY. "It is only _partially_ done." This use of the adverb _partially_ is sanctioned by high authority, but that does not make it correct. A thing done in part is _partly_, not _partially_, done.

PARTICIPLES. When the present participle is used substantively, in sentences like the following, it is preceded by the definite article and followed by the preposition _of_. The omitting of the preposition is a common error. Thus, "Or, it is _the drawing_ a conclusion which was before either unknown or dark," should be, "the drawing _of_ a conclusion." "Prompted by the most extreme vanity, he persisted in the writing bad verses," should be, "in writing bad verses," or "in the writing _of_ bad verses." "There is a misuse of the article _a_ which is very common. It is the using it before the word _most_."--Moon. Most writers would have said "the using _of_ it." Mr. Moon argues for his construction.

PARTICLES. "Nothing but study of the best writers and practice in composition will enable us to decide what are the prepositions and conjunctions that ought to go with certain verbs. The following examples illustrate some common blunders:

"'It was characterized _with_ eloquence': read, 'by.'

"'A testimonial _of_ the merits of his grammar': read, 'to.'

"'It was an example of the love _to form_ comparisons': read, 'of forming.'

"'Repetition is always to be preferred _before_ obscurity': read, 'to.'