Chapter 14

SLANG. The slang that is heard among respectable people is made up of genuine words, to which an arbitrary meaning is given. It is always low, generally coarse, and not unfrequently foolish. With the exception of _cant_, there is nothing that is more to be shunned. We sometimes meet with persons of considerable culture who interlard their talk with slang expressions, but it is safe to assert that they are always persons of coarse natures.

SMART. See CLEVER.

SMELL OF. See TASTE OF.

SO. See AS; SUCH; THAT.

SO MUCH SO. "The shipments by the coast steamers are very large, _so much so_ [large?] as to tax the capacity of the different lines."--"Telegram," September 19, 1881. The sentence should be, "The shipments by the coast steamers are very large, _so large_ as to tax," etc.

SOLECISM. In rhetoric, a solecism is defined as an offense against the rules of grammar by the use of words in a wrong construction; false syntax.

"Modern grammarians designate by _solecism_ any word or expression which does not agree with the established usage of writing or speaking. But, as customs change, that which at one time is considered a _solecism_ may at another be regarded as correct language. A _solecism_, therefore, differs from a _barbarism_, inasmuch as the latter consists in the use of a word or expression which is altogether contrary to the spirit of the language, and can, properly speaking, never become established as correct language."--"Penny Cyclopædia." See, also, BARBARISM.

SOME. This word is not unfrequently misused for _somewhat_; thus, "She is _some_ better to-day." It is likewise often misused for _about_; thus, "I think it is _some_ ten miles from here": read, "_about_ ten miles from here."

SPECIALTY. This form has within a recent period been generally substituted for _speciality_. There is no apparent reason, however, why the _i_ should be dropped, since it is required by the etymology of the word, and is retained in nearly all other words of the same formation.

SPECIOUS FALLACY. A _fallacy_ is a sophism, a logical artifice, a deceitful or false appearance; while _specious_ means having the appearance of truth, plausible. Hence we see that the very essence of a _fallacy_ is its _speciousness_. We may very properly say that a _fallacy_ is more or less _specious_, but we can not properly say that a fallacy _is_ specious, since without speciousness we can have no fallacies.

SPLENDID. This poor word is used by the gentler sex to qualify well-nigh everything that has their approval, from a sugar-plum to the national capitol. In fact, _splendid_ and _awful_ seem to be about the only adjectives some of our superlative young women have in their vocabularies.

STANDPOINT. This is a word to which many students of English seriously object, and among them are the editors of some of our daily papers, who do not allow it to appear in their columns. The phrase to which no one objects is, _point of view_.

STATE. This word, which properly means to make known specifically, to explain particularly, is often misused for _say_. When _say_ says all one _wants_ to say, why use a more pretentious word?

STOP. "Where are you _stopping_?" "At the Metropolitan." The proper word to use here is _staying_. _To stop_ means to cease to go forward, to leave off; and _to stay_ means to abide, to tarry, to dwell, to sojourn. We _stay_, not _stop_, at home, at a hotel, or with a friend, as the case may be.

STORM. Many persons indulge in a careless use of this word, using it when they mean to say simply that it rains or snows. To a _storm_ a violent commotion of the atmosphere is indispensable. A very high wind constitutes a storm, though it be dry.

STRAIGHTWAY. Here is a good Anglo-Saxon word of _two_ syllables whose place, without any good reason, is being usurped by the Latin word _immediately_, of _five_ syllables.

STREET. We live _in_, not _on_--meet our acquaintances _in_, not _on_--things occur _in_, not _on_--houses are built _in_, not _on_, the street, and so forth.

STYLE. This is a term that is used to characterize the peculiarities that distinguish a writer or a composition. Correctness and clearness properly belong to the domain of _diction_; simplicity, conciseness, gravity, elegance, diffuseness, floridity, force, feebleness, coarseness, etc., belong to the domain of _style_.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD. This mood is unpopular with not a few now-a-day grammarians. One says that it is rapidly falling into disuse; that, in fact, there is good reason to suppose it will soon become obsolete. Another says that it would, perhaps, be better to abolish it entirely, as its use is a continual source of dispute among grammarians and of perplexity to schools. Another says that it is a universal stumbling-block; that nobody seems to understand it, although almost everybody attempts to use it.

That the subjunctive mood is much less used now than it was a hundred years ago is certain, but that it is obsolescent is very far from certain. It would not be easy, I think, to find a single contemporary writer who does not use it. That it is not always easy to determine what form of it we should employ is very true; but if we are justified in abolishing it altogether, as Mr. Chandler suggests, because its correct use is not always easy, then we are also justified in abolishing the use of _shall_ and _will_, and of the prepositions, for surely their right use is likewise at times most puzzling. Meanwhile, most persons will think it well to learn to use the subjunctive mood properly. With that object in view, one can not, perhaps, do better than to attend to what Dr. Alexander Bain, Professor of Logic in the University of Aberdeen, says upon the subject. In Professor Bain's "Higher English Grammar" we find:

"In subordinate clauses.--In a clause expressing a condition, and introduced by a conjunction of condition, the verb is sometimes, but not always, in the subjunctive mood: 'If I _be_ able,' 'if I _were_ strong enough,' 'if thou _should_ come.'

"The subjunctive inflexions have been wholly lost. The sense that something is wanting appears to have led many writers to use indicative forms where the subjunctive might be expected. The tendency appears strongest in the case of 'wert,' which is now used as indicative (for 'wast') only in poetical or elevated language.

"The following is the rule given for the use of the subjunctive mood:

"When in a conditional clause it is intended to express doubt or denial, use the subjunctive mood.[30] 'If I _were_ sure of what you tell me, I would go.'

"When the conditional clause is _affirmative_ and _certain_, the verb is _indicative_: 'If that _is_ the case' (as you now tell me, and as I believe), 'I can understand you.' This is equivalent to a clause of assumption, or supposition: 'That being the case,' 'inasmuch as that is the case,' etc.

"As _futurity_ is by its nature uncertain, the subjunctive is extensively used for future conditionality: 'If it _rain_, we shall not be able to go'; 'if I _be_ well'; 'if he _come_ shortly'; 'if thou _return_ at all in peace'; 'though he _slay_ me, yet will I trust in him.' These events are all in the uncertain future, and are put in the subjunctive.[31]

"A future result or consequence is expressed by the subjunctive in such instances as these: 'I will wait till he _return_'; 'no fear lest dinner _cool_'; 'thou shalt stone him with stones, that he _die_'; 'take heed lest at any time your hearts _be_ overcharged with surfeiting.'

"Uncertainty as to a past event may arise from our own ignorance, in which case the subjunctive is properly employed, and serves the useful purpose of distinguishing our ignorance from our knowledge. 'If any of my readers _has_ looked with so little attention upon the world around him'; this would mean--'as I know that they have.' The meaning intended is probably--'as I do not know whether they have or not,' and therefore the subjunctive 'have' is preferable. 'If ignorance _is_ bliss,' which I (ironically) admit. Had Gray been speaking seriously, he would have said, 'if ignorance _be_ bliss,' he himself dissenting from the proposition.

"A wish contrary to the fact takes the subjunctive: 'I wish he _were_ here' (which he is not).

"An intention not yet carried out is also subjunctive: 'The sentence is that you _be_ imprisoned.'

"The only correct form of the future subjunctive is--'if I should.' We may say, 'I do not know whether or not I _shall_ come'; but 'if I shall come,' expressing a condition, is not an English construction. 'If he will' has a real meaning, as being the present subjunctive of the verb 'will': 'if he be willing,' 'if he have the will.' It is in accordance with good usage to express a future subjunctive meaning by a present tense; but in that case the form must be strictly subjunctive, and not indicative. 'If any member _absents_ himself, he shall forfeit a penny for the use of the club'; this ought to be either 'absent,' or 'should absent.' 'If thou _neglectest_ or _doest_ unwillingly what I command thee, I will rack thee with old cramps'; better, 'if thou _neglect_ or _do_ unwillingly,' or 'if thou should neglect.' The indicative would be justified by the speaker's belief that the supposition is sure to turn out to be the fact.

"The past subjunctive may imply denial; as, 'if the book _were_ in the library (as it is not), it should be at your service.'

"'If the book _be_ in the library,' means, 'I do not know whether it be or not.' We have thus the power of discriminating _three_ different suppositions. 'If the book _is_ in the library' (as I know it is); 'if it _be_' (I am uncertain); 'if it _were_' (as I know it is not). So, 'if it rains,' 'if it rain,' 'if it rained.' 'Nay, and the villains march wide between the legs, as if they _had_ gyves on,' implying that they had not.

"The same power of the past tense is exemplified in 'if I _could_, I would,' which means, 'I can not'; whereas, 'if I can, I will,' means 'I do not know.'

"The past subjunctive may be expressed by an inversion: '_Had_ I the power,' '_were_ I as I have been.'

"In Principal Clauses.--The principal clause in a conditional statement also takes the subjunctive form when it refers to what is future and contingent, and when it refers to what is past and uncertain, or denied. 'If he should try, he _would_ succeed'; 'if I had seen him, I _should_ have asked him.'

"The usual forms of the subjunctive in the principal clause are 'would,' 'should,' 'would have,' 'should have'; and it is to be noted that in this application the second persons take the inflexional ending of the indicative: 'shouldst,' 'wouldst.'

"'If 'twere done when 'tis done, then 't_were_ (would be) well It _were_ (should be) done quickly.'

"The English idiom appears sometimes to permit the use of an indicative where we should expect a subjunctive form. 'Many acts, that _had_ been otherwise blamable, were employed'; 'I _had_ fainted, unless I had believed,' etc.

"'Which else _lie_ furled and shrouded in the soul.'

"In 'else' there is implied a conditional clause that would suit 'lie'; or the present may be regarded as a more vivid form of expression. 'Had' may be indicative; just as we sometimes find pluperfect indicative for pluperfect subjunctive in the same circumstances in Latin. We may refer it to the general tendency, as already seen in the uses of 'could,' 'would,' 'should,' etc., to express conditionality by a past tense; or the indicative may be used as a more direct and vivid mode. 'Had' may be subjunctive; 'I _had_ fainted' is, in construction, analogous to 'I _should_ have fainted'; the word for futurity, 'shall,' not being necessary to the sense, is withdrawn, and its past inflexion transferred to 'have.' Compare Germ. _würde haben_ and _hätte_."

In addition to the foregoing, we find in Professor Bain's "Composition Grammar" the following:

"The case most suited to the subjunctive is _contingent futurity_, or the expression of an event unknown absolutely, as being still in the future: 'If to-morrow _be_ fine, I will walk with you.'

"'Unless I _were_ prepared,' insinuates pretty strongly that I am or am not prepared, according to the manner of the principal clause.

"'What's a tall man unless he _fight_?'

"'The sword hath ended him: so shall it thee, Unless thou _yield_ thee as my prisoner.'

"'Who but must laugh, if such a man there _be_? Who would not weep, if Atticus _were_ he?'

"'I am to second Ion if he _fail_'; the failing is left quite doubtful. 'I should very imperfectly execute the task which I have undertaken if I _were_ merely to treat of battles and sieges.' Macaulay thus implies that the scope of his work is to be wider than mere battles and sieges.

"The subjunctive appears in some other constructions. 'I hope to see the exhibition before _it close_'; 'wait till he _return_'; 'thou shall stand by the river's brink against he _come_'; 'take heed lest passion _sway_ thy judgment'; 'speak to me, though it _be_ in wrath'; 'if he _smite_ him with an instrument of iron so that he _die_, he is a murderer'; 'beware this night that thou _cross_ not my footsteps' (Shelley).

"Again. 'Whatever this _be_'; 'whoever he _be_'; 'howe'er it _be_' (Tennyson); and such like.

"'And _as long_, O God, _as_ she _Have_ a grain of love for me, So long, no doubt, no doubt, Shall I nurse in my dark heart, However weary, a spark of will Not to be trampled out.'

"The Future Subjunctive is given in our scheme of the verb as 'should' in all persons: 'If I should, if thou should, if he should.' In old English, we have 'thou _shouldst_': 'if thou, Lord, _shouldst_ mark iniquities.'

"An inverted conditional form has taken deep root in our language, and may be regarded as an elegant and forcible variety. While dispensing with the conjunction, it does not cause ambiguity; nevertheless, conditionality is well marked.

"'_If_ you _should_ abandon your Penelope and your home for Calypso, ----': '_should_ you abandon ----.'

"'_Go_ not my horse the better, I must become a borrower of the night For a dark hour or twain.'

"'Here had we now our country's honor roof'd _Were_ the graced person of our Banquo present.'

"'_Be_ thou a spirit of health or goblin damn'd, _Bring_ with thee airs from heaven or blasts from hell, _Be_ thy intents wicked or charitable, Thou com'st in such a questionable shape That I will speak to thee.'

"'_Come_ one, _come_ all, this rock shall fly From its firm base as soon as I.'--Scott.

"The following examples are given by Mätzner:

"'Varney's communications, _be_ they what they might, were operating in his favor.'--Scott.

"'Governing persons, _were_ they never so insignificant intrinsically, have for most part plenty of Memoir-writers.'--Carlyle.

"'Even _were_ I disposed, I could not gratify the reader.'--Warren.

"'Bring them back to me, _cost_ what it may.'--Coleridge, 'Wallenstein.'

"'And _will_ you, _nill_ you, I will marry you.'--'Taming of the Shrew.'

"_Were_ is used in the principal clause for 'should be' or 'would be.'[32]

"'I _were_ (=should be) a fool, not less than if a panther Were panic-stricken by the antelope's eye, If she escape me.'--Shelley.

"'Were you but riding forth to air yourself, Such parting _were_ too petty.'

"'He _were_ (=would be) no lion, were not Romans hinds.'

"'Should he be roused out of his sleep to-night, ... It _were_ not well; indeed it _were_ not well.'--Shelley.

"_Had_ is sometimes used in the principal clause for 'should have' or 'would have.'[33]

"'Had I known this before we set out, I think I _had_ (= would have) remained at home.'--Scott.

"'Hadst thou been kill'd when first thou didst presume, Thou _hadst_ not lived to kill a son of mine.'

"'If he Had killed me, he _had_ done a kinder deed.'

"'For once he _had_ been ta'en or slain, An it had not been his ministry.'--Scott.

"'If thou hadst said him nay, it _had_ been sin.'[34]

"'_Had_ better, rather, best, as lief, as well, etc.,' is a form that is explained under this heading. 'Had' stands for 'would have.' The exploded notion that 'had' is a corrupted 'would' must be guarded against.

"'I _had_ as lief not be.' That is--'I _would_ as lief _have_ not (_to_) be' = 'I would as willingly (or as soon) have non-existence.'

"'_Had_ you rather Cæsar were living----?' '_Would_ you rather _have_ (_would_ you _prefer_ that) Cæsar were living?'

"'He _had_ better reconsider the matter' is 'he _would_ better _have_ (_to_) reconsider the matter.'

"'I _had_ rather be a kitten and cry mew Than one of these same metre ballad-mongers; I _had_ rather hear a brazen canstick turned.'

"Let us compare this form with another that appears side by side with it in early writers. (Cp. Lat. 'habeo' and 'mihi est.')

"The construction of 'had' is thus illustrated in Chaucer, as in--Nonne Prestes Tale, 300:

"'By God, I _hadde_ levere than my scherte, That ye hadde rad his legend, as I have.'

"Compare now:

"'Ah _me were levere_ with lawe _loose_ my lyf Then so to fote hem _falle_.'--Wright, 'Polit. S.'

"Here 'were' is unquestionably for 'would be'; and the whole expression might be given by 'had,' thus: 'Ah, _I hadde_ levere ----,' '(to) _loose_' and '(to) _falle_,' changing from subjects of 'were' to objects of 'hadde.'

"So, in the Chaucer example above, if we substitute 'be' for 'have,' we shall get the same meaning, thus: 'By God, _me were_ levere ----.' The interchange helps us to see more clearly that 'hadde' is to be explained as subjunctive for 'would have.'" See INDICATIVE AND SUBJUNCTIVE.

SUCH. "I have never before seen _such_ a large ox." By a little transposing of the words of this sentence, we have, "I have never before seen an ox _such_ large," which makes it quite clear that we should say _so large an ox_ and not _such a large ox_. As proof that this error in the use of _such_ is common, we find in Mr. George Washington Moon's "Dean's English and Bad English," the sentence, "With all due deference to _such_ a high authority on _such_ a very important matter." With a little transposing, this sentence is made to read, "With all due deference to an authority _such_ high on a matter _such_ very important." It is clear that the sentence should read, "With all due deference to _so_ high an authority on _so_ very important a matter." The phrases, _such_ a handsome, _such_ a lovely, _such_ a long, _such_ narrow, etc., are incorrect, and should be _so_ handsome, _so_ lovely, _so_ long, and so on.

SUMMON. This verb comes in for its full share of mauling. We often hear such expressions as "I will _summons_ him," instead of _summon_ him; and "He was _summonsed_," instead of _summoned_.

SUPERFLUOUS WORDS. "Whenever I try to write well, I _always_ find I can do it." "I shall have finished by the _latter_ end of the week." "Iron sinks _down_ in water." "He combined _together_ all the facts." "My brother called on me, and we _both_ took a walk." "I can do it _equally_ as well as he." "We could not forbear _from_ doing it." "Before I go, I must _first_ be paid." "We were compelled to return _back_." "We forced them to retreat _back_ fully a mile." "His conduct was approved _of_ by everybody." "They conversed _together_ for a long time." "The balloon rose _up_ very rapidly." "Give me another _one_." "Come home as soon as _ever_ you can." "Who finds him _in_ money?" "He came in last _of all_." "He has _got_ all he can carry." "What have you _got_?" "No matter what I have _got_." "I have _got_ the headache." "Have you _got_ any brothers?" "No, but I have _got_ a sister." All the words in _italics_ are superfluous.

SUPERIOR. This word is not unfrequently used for able, excellent, gifted; as, "She is a _superior_ woman," meaning an _excellent_ woman; "He is a _superior_ man," meaning an _able_ man. The expression _an inferior man_ is not less objectionable.

SUPPOSITITIOUS. This word is _properly_ used in the sense of put by a trick into the place or character belonging to another, spurious, counterfeit, not genuine; and _improperly_ in the sense of conjectural, hypothetical, imaginary, presumptive; as, "This is a _supposititious_ case," meaning an _imaginary_ or _presumptive_ case. "The English critic derived his materials from a stray copy of some _supposititious_ indexes devised by one of the 'Post' reporters."--"Nation." Here is a correct use of the word.

SWOSH. There is a kind of ill-balanced brain in which the reflective and the imaginative very much outweight the perceptive. Men to whom this kind of an organization has been given generally have active minds, but their minds never present anything clearly. To their mental vision all is ill-defined, chaotic. They see everything in a haze. Whether such men talk or write, they are verbose, illogical, intangible, will-o'-the-wispish. Their thoughts are phantomlike; like shadows, they continually escape their grasp. In their talk they will, after long dissertations, tell you that they have not said just what they would like to say; there is always a subtle, lurking something still unexpressed, which something is the real essence of the matter, and which your penetration is expected to divine. In their writings they are eccentric, vague, labyrinthine, pretentious, transcendental,[35] and frequently ungrammatical. These men, if write they must, should confine themselves to the descriptive; for when they enter the essayist's domain, which they are very prone to do, they write what I will venture to call _swosh_.

We find examples in plenty of this kind of writing in the essays of Mr. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Indeed, the impartial critic who will take the trouble to examine any of Mr. Emerson's essays at all carefully, is quite sure to come to the conclusion that Mr. Emerson has seen everything he has ever made the subject of his essays very much as London is seen from the top of Saint Paul's in a fog.

Mr. Emerson's definition of Nature runs thus: "Philosophically considered, the universe is composed of Nature and the Soul. Strictly speaking, therefore, all that is separate from us, all which philosophy distinguishes from the _Not Me_--that is, both Nature and Art, and all other men, and my own body--must be ranked under this name 'NATURE.' In enumerating the values of Nature and casting up their sum, I shall use the word in both senses--in its common and in its philosophical import. In inquiries so general as our present one, the inaccuracy is not material; no confusion of thought will occur. _Nature_, in the common sense, refers to essences unchanged by man: space, the air, the river, the leaf. _Art_ is applied to the mixture of his will with the same things, as in a house, a canal, a picture, a statue. But his operations, taken together, are so insignificant--a little chipping, baking, patching, and washing--that in an impression so grand as that of the world on the human mind they do not vary the result."

In "Letters and Social Aims" Mr. Emerson writes: "Eloquence is the power to translate a truth into language perfectly intelligible to the person to whom you speak. He who would convince the worthy Mr. Dunderhead of any truth which Dunderhead does not see, must be a master of his art. Declamation is common; but such possession of thought as is here required, such practical chemistry as the conversion of a truth written in God's language into a truth in Dunderhead's language, is one of the most beautiful and cogent weapons that is forged in the shop of the Divine Artificer."