Chapter 4

Page 161. "The boy studies ... geography and hates everything connected with the sea and land." Why _the_ boy? As there are few things besides seals and turtles that are connected with the sea _and_ land, the boy in question has few things to hate.

On page 175, Dr. Townsend heads a chapter thus: "_Art_ of acquiring _Skill_ in the use of Poetic Speech." This reminds one of the man who tried to lift himself over a fence by taking hold of the seat of his breeches. "_How_ to acquire skill" is probably what is meant.

On page 232, "Jeremy Taylor is among the best models of long sentences which are both clear and logical." Jeremy Taylor is a clear and logical long sentence?! True, our learned rhetorician says so, but he doesn't mean it. He means, "In Jeremy Taylor we find some of the best examples of long sentences which are at once clear and logical."

Since the foregoing was written, the second volume of Professor Townsend's "Art of Speech" has been published. In the brief preface to this volume we find this characteristic sentence: "The author has felt that _clergymen_ more than _those_ of other professions will study this treatise." The antecedent of the relative _those_ being _clergymen_, the sentence, it will be perceived, says: "The author has felt that _clergymen_ more than _clergymen of other professions_ will study this treatise." Comment on such "art" as Professor Townsend's is not necessary.

I find several noteworthy examples of bad diction in an article in a recent number of an Australian magazine. The following are some of them: "_Large capital_ always manages to make _itself_ master of the situation; it is the small capitalist and the small landholder that would suffer," etc. Should be, "_The large capitalist ... himself_," etc. Again: "The small farmer would ... be despoiled ... of the meager profit which _strenuous_ labor had conquered from the _reluctant_ soil." Not only are the epithets in italics superfluous, and consequently weakening in their effect, but idiom does not permit _strenuous_ to be used to qualify _labor_: _hard_ labor and _strenuous_ effort. Again: "Capital has always the choice _of_ a large field." Should be, "the choice _offered by_ a large field." Again: "Should capital be withdrawn, tenements would soon prove insufficient." Should be, "_the number of_ tenements would," etc. Again: "Men of wealth, therefore, would find their Fifth Avenue mansions and their summer villas a little more burdened with taxes, but with this increase happily balanced by the exemption of their bonds and mortgages, their plate and furniture." The thought here is so simple that we easily divine it; but, if we look at the sentence at all carefully, we find that, though we supply the ellipses in the most charitable manner possible, the sentence really says: "Men would find their mansions more burdened, but would find them with this increased burden happily balanced by the exemption," etc. The sentence should have been framed somewhat in this wise: "Men ... would find their ... mansions ... more burdened with taxes, but this increase in the taxes on their real estate would be happily balanced by the exemption from taxation of their bonds, mortgages, plate, and furniture." Again: "Men generally ... would be inclined to laugh at the idea of intrusting the modern politician with such gigantic opportunities for enriching his favorites." We do not _intrust_ one another with _opportunities_. _To enrich_ would better the diction. Again: "The value of land that has accrued from labor is not ... a just object for confiscation." Correctly: "The value of land that has _resulted_ from labor is not _justly_ ... an object _of_ confiscation." _Accrue_ is properly used more in the sense of _spontaneous growth_. Again: "If the state attempts to confiscate this increase by means of taxes, either rentals will increase correspondingly, or such a check will be put upon _the_ growth _of each place_ and _all the_ enterprises _connected with it_ that greater injury would be done than if things had been left untouched." We have here, it will be observed, a confusion of moods; the sentence begins in the indicative and ends in the conditional. The words in italics are worse than superfluous. Rewritten: "If the state _should_ attempt to confiscate this increase by means of taxes, either rentals _would_ increase correspondingly, or such a check _would_ be put upon growth and enterprise that greater injury would," etc. Again: "The _theory_ that land ... is a _boon_ of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal to every other person, is not new." The words _theory_ and _boon_ are here misused. A _theory_ is a system of suppositions. The things man receives from Nature are _gifts_, not _boons_: the gift of reason, the gift of speech, etc. The sentence should be: "The _declaration_ (or _assertion_) that land ... is a _gift_ of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal to _that of any_ other person, is not new." Or, more simply and quite as forcibly: "... to which one person has an inalienable right equal to that of another, is not new." Or, more simply still, and more forcibly: "... to which one _man_ has as good a right as another, is not new." By substituting the word _man_ for _person_, we have a word of one syllable that expresses, in this connection, all that the longer word expresses. The fewer the syllables, if the thought be fully expressed, the more vigorous the diction. Inalienability being foreign to the discussion, the long word _inalienable_ only encumbers the sentence.

"We have thus[1] passed in review[2] the changes and improvements[3] which the revision contains[4] in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It has[5] not, indeed,[6] been possible to refer to[7] them all; but so many illustrations[8] have been given in[9] the several classes described that the reader will have[10] a satisfactory[11] survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said of other portions[12] of the New Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle the changes have improved the old[13] translation. They are such as[14] make the English version[15] conform more completely[16] to the Greek original. If this be[17] true, the revisers have done a good work for the Church.[18] If it be true[19] with regard to all the New Testament books, the work which they have done will remain[20] a blessing to the readers of those books for[21] generations to come. But the blessing will be only in the clearer presentation of the Divine truth, and, therefore, it will be only to the glory of God."

This astonishingly slipshod bit of composition is from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Timothy Dwight. If the learned Professor of Divinity in Yale College deemed it worth while to give a little thought to manner as well as to matter, it is probable that his diction would be very different from what it is; and, if he were to give a few minutes to the making of verbal corrections in the foregoing paragraph, he would, perhaps, do something like this: 1, change _thus_ to _now_; 2, write _some of_ the changes; 3, strike out _and improvements_; 4, for _contains changes_ substitute some other form of expression; 5, instead of _has been_, write _was_; 6, strike out _indeed_; 7, instead of _refer to_, write _cite_; 8, change _illustrations_ to _examples_; 9, instead of _in_, write _of_; 10, instead of _the reader will have_, write _the reader will be able to get_; 11, change _satisfactory_ to _tolerable_; 12, change _portions_ to _parts_; 13, not talk of the _old_ translation, as we have no new one; 14, strike out as superfluous the words _are such as_; 15, change _version_ to _text_; 16, substitute _nearly_ for _completely_, which does not admit of comparison; 17, substitute the indicative for the conditional; 18, end sentence with the word _work_; 19, introduce _also_ after _be_; 20, instead of _remain_, in the sense of _be_, use _be_; 21, introduce _the_ after _for_. As for the last sentence, it reminds one of Mendelssohn's "Songs without Words," though here we have, instead of a song and no words, words and no song, or rather no meaning. As is often true of cant, we have here simply a syntactical arrangement of words signifying--nothing.

If Professor Dwight were of those who, in common with the Addisons and Macaulays and Newmans, think it worth while to give some attention to diction, the thought conveyed in the paragraph under consideration would, perhaps, have been expressed somewhat in this wise:

"We have now passed in review some of the changes that, in the revision, have been made in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It was not possible to cite them all, but a sufficient number of examples of the several classes described have been given to enable the reader to get a tolerable survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said of the other parts of the New Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle the changes have improved the translation. They make the English text conform more nearly to the Greek. This being true, the revisers have done a good work; and, if it be also true with regard to all the New Testament books, the work which they have done will be a blessing to the readers of these books for the generations to come."

DIE WITH. Man and brute die _of_, and not _with_, fevers, consumption, the plague, pneumonia, old age, and so on.

DIFFER. Writers differ _from_ one another in opinion with regard to the particle we should use with this verb. Some say they differ _with_, others that they differ _from_, their neighbors in opinion. The weight of authority is on the side of always using _from_, though A may differ _with_ C from D in opinion with regard, say, to the size of the fixed stars. "I differ, as to this matter, _from_ Bishop Lowth."--Cobbett. _Different to_ is heard sometimes instead of _different from_.

DIRECTLY. The Britons have a way of using this word in the sense of _when_, _as soon as_. This is quite foreign to its true meaning, which is immediately, at once, straightway. They say, for example, "_Directly_ he reached the city, he went to his brother's." "Directly he [the saint] was dead, the Arabs sent his woolen shirt to the sovereign."--"London News." Dr. Hall says of its use in the sense of _as soon as_: "But, after all, it may simply anticipate on the English of the future."

DIRT. This word means filth or anything that renders foul and unclean, and means nothing else. It is often improperly used for earth or loam, and sometimes even for sand or gravel. We not unfrequently hear of a _dirt_ road when an unpaved road is meant.

DISCOMMODE. This word is rarely used; _incommode_ is accounted the better form.

DISREMEMBER. This is a word vulgarly used in the sense of _forget_. It is said to be more frequently heard in the South than in the North.

DISTINGUISH. This verb is sometimes improperly used for _discriminate_. We _distinguish_ by means of the senses as well as of the understanding; we _discriminate_ by means of the understanding only. "It is difficult, in some cases, to _distinguish between_," etc.: should be, "It is difficult, in some cases, to _discriminate between_," etc. We _distinguish_ one thing _from another_, and _discriminate between_ two or more things.

DOCK--WHARF. The first of these words is often improperly used for the second. Of docks there are several kinds: a _naval dock_ is a place for the keeping of naval stores, timber, and materials for ship-building; a _dry dock_ is a place where vessels are drawn out of the water for repairs; a _wet dock_ is a place where vessels are kept afloat at a certain level while they are loaded and unloaded; a _sectional dock_ is a contrivance for raising vessels out of the water on a series of air-tight boxes. A _dock_, then, is a place into which things are received; hence, a man might fall _into_ a dock, but could no more fall _off_ a dock than he could fall off a hole. A _wharf_ is a sort of quay built by the side of the water. A similar structure built at a right angle with the shore is generally called a _pier_. Vessels lie at _wharves_ and _piers_, not at _docks_.

DONATE. This word, which is defined as meaning to give, to contribute, is looked upon by most champions of good English as being an abomination. _Donation_ is also little used by careful writers. "_Donate_," says Mr. Gould, "may be dismissed with this remark: so long as its place is occupied by _give_, _bestow_, _grant_, _present_, etc., it is not needed; and it should be unceremoniously bowed out, or thrust out, of the seat into which it has, temporarily, intruded."

DONE. This past participle is often very inelegantly, if not improperly, used thus: "He did not cry out as some have _done_ against it," which should read, "He did not cry out as some have against it"; i. e., "as some _have cried out_ against it."

"Done is frequently a very great offender against grammar," says Cobbett. "_To do_ is the _act of doing_. We see people write, 'I _did_ not speak yesterday so well as I wished to have _done_.' Now, what is meant by the writer? He means to say that he _did_ not speak so well as he then _wished_, or was wishing, _to speak_. Therefore, the sentence should be, 'I did not speak yesterday so well as I wished _to do_.' That is to say, 'so well as I wished to do it'; that is to say, to do or to perform _the act of speaking_.

"Take great care not to be too free in your use of the verb _to do_ in any of its times or modes. It is a nice little handy word, and, like our oppressed _it_, it is made use of very often when the writer is at a _loss_ for what to put down. _To do_ is to _act_, and therefore it never can, in any of its parts, supply the place of a _neuter_ verb. 'How do you do?' Here _do_ refers to the _state_, and is essentially passive or neuter. Yet, to employ it for this purpose is very common. Dr. Blair, in his 23d Lecture, says: 'It is somewhat unfortunate that this Number of the "Spectator" did not _end_, as it might have _done_, with the former beautiful period.' That is to say, _done it_. And then we ask, Done what? Not the _act of ending_, because in this case there is _no action_ at all. The verb means _to come to an end_, _to cease_, _not to go any further_. This same verb _to end_ is sometimes an active verb: 'I _end_ my sentence'; _then_ the verb _to do_ may supply its place; as, 'I have not ended my sentence so well as I might have _done_'; that is, done _it_; that is, done, or performed, the _act of ending_. But the Number of the 'Spectator' was no _actor_; it was expected to _perform_ nothing; it was, by the Doctor, wished to have _ceased_ to proceed. 'Did not _end_ as it very well might have ended....' This would have been correct; but the Doctor wished to avoid the _repetition_, and thus he fell into bad grammar. 'Mr. Speaker, I do not _feel_ so well satisfied as I should have _done_ if the Right Honorable Gentleman had explained the matter more fully.' To _feel_ satisfied is--when the satisfaction is to arise from conviction produced by fact or reasoning--a senseless expression; and to supply its place, when it is, as in this case, a neuter verb, by _to do_, is as senseless. Done _what_? Done _the act of feeling_! 'I do not _feel_ so well satisfied as I should have _done_, or _executed_, or _performed_ the _act of feeling_'! What incomprehensible words!"

DON'T. Everybody knows that _don't_ is a contraction of _do not_, and that _doesn't_ is a contraction of _does not_; and yet _nearly_ everybody is guilty of using _don't_ when he should use _doesn't_. "So you _don't_ go; John _doesn't_ either, I hear."

DOUBLE GENITIVE. An anecdote of Mr. Lincoln--an anecdote of Mr. Lincoln's. We see at a glance that these two phrases are very different in meaning. So, also, a portrait of Brown--a portrait of Brown's. No precise rule has ever been given to guide us in our choice between these two forms of the possessive case. Sometimes it is not material which form is employed; where, however, it is material--and it generally is--we must consider the thought we wish to express, and rely on our discrimination.

DRAMATIZE. See ADAPT.

DRAWING-ROOM. See PARLOR.

DRESS--GOWN. Within the memory of many persons the outer garment worn by women was properly called a _gown_ by everybody, instead of being improperly called a _dress_, as it now is by nearly everybody.

DRIVE. See RIDE.

DUE--OWING. These two words, though close synonyms, should not be used indiscriminately. The mistake usually made is in using _due_ instead of _owing_. That is _due_ which ought to be paid as a debt; that is _owing_ which is to be referred to as a source. "It was _owing_ to his exertions that the scheme succeeded." "It was _owing_ to your negligence that the accident happened." "A certain respect is _due_ to men's prejudices." "This was _owing_ to an indifference to the pleasures of life." "It is _due_ to the public that I should tell all I know of the matter."

EACH OTHER. "Their great authors address themselves, not to their country, but to _each other_."--Buckle. _Each other_ is properly applied to two only; _one another_ must be used when the number considered exceeds two. Buckle should have written _one another_ and not _each other_, unless he meant to intimate that the Germans had only two great authors, which is not probable.

EAT. Grammarians differ very widely with regard to the conjugation of this verb; there is no doubt, however, that from every point of view the preferable forms for the preterite and past participle are respectively _ate_ and _eaten_. To refined ears the other forms smack of vulgarity, although supported by good authority. "I _ate_ an apple." "I have _eaten_ dinner." "John _ate_ supper with me." "As soon as you have _eaten_ breakfast we will set out."

EDITORIAL. The use of this adjective as a substantive is said to be an Americanism.

EDUCATION. This is one of the most misused of words. A man may be well acquainted with the contents of text-books, and yet be a person of little _education_; on the other hand, a man may be a person of good education, and yet know little of the contents of text-books. Abraham Lincoln and Edwin Forrest knew comparatively little of what is generally learned in schools; still they were men of culture, men of _education_. A man may have ever so much book-knowledge and still be a boor; but a man can not be a person of good education and not be--so far as manner is concerned--a gentleman. _Education_, then, is a whole of which Instruction and Breeding are the parts. The man or the woman--even in this democratic country of ours--who _deserves_ the title of gentleman or lady is always a person of education; i. e., he or she has a sufficient acquaintance with books and with the usages of social intercourse to acquit himself or herself creditably in the society of cultivated people. Not moral worth, nor learning, nor wealth, nor all three combined, can unaided make a gentleman, for with all three a man might be _uneducated_--i. e., coarse, unbred, unschooled in those things which alone make men welcome in the society of the refined.

EFFECTUATE. This word, together with _ratiocinate_ and _eventuate_, is said to be a great favorite with the rural members of the Arkansas legislature.

EFFLUVIUM. The plural of this word is _effluvia_. It is a common error with those who have no knowledge of Latin to speak of "a disagreeable effluvia," which is as incorrect as it would be to talk about "a disagreeable vapors."

EFFORT WITHOUT EFFECT. "Some writers deal in expletives to a degree that tires the ear and offends the understanding. With them everything is _excessively_, or _immensely_, or _extremely_, or _vastly_, or _surprisingly_, or _wonderfully_, or _abundantly_, or the like. The notion of such writers is that these words give _strength_ to what they are saying. This is a great error. Strength must be found in the _thought_, or it will never be found in the _words_. Big-sounding words, without thoughts corresponding, are effort without effect."--William Cobbett. See FORCIBLE-FEEBLE.

EGOIST. "One of a class of philosophers who professed to be sure of nothing but their own existence."--Reid.

EGOTIST. "One who talks much of himself."

"A tribe of _egotists_ for whom I have always had a mortal aversion."--"Spectator."

EITHER. This word means, strictly, the _one_ or the _other_ of two. Unlike _both_, which means two taken collectively, _either_, like _each_, may mean _two considered separately_; but in this sense _each_ is the better word to use. "Give me _either_ of them" means, Give me the one or the other of two. "He has a farm on _either_ side of the river" would mean that he has two farms, one on each (or either) side of the river. "He has a farm on _both_ sides of the river" would mean that his farm lies partly on the one side of the river and partly on the other. The use of _either_ in the sense of _each_, though biblical and defensible, may be accounted little if any better than an affectation. _Neither_ is the negative of _either_. _Either_ is responded to by _or_, _neither_ by _nor_; as, "_either_ this _or_ that," "_neither_ this _nor_ that." _Either_ and _neither_ should not--strictly--be used in relation to more than two objects. But, though both _either_ and _neither_ are strictly applicable to two only, they have been for a very long time used in relation to more than two by many good writers; and, as it is often convenient so to use them, it seems probable that the custom will prevail. When more than two things are referred to, _any_ and _none_ should be used instead of _either_ and _neither_; as, "_any_ of the three," not, "_either_ of the three"; "_none_ of the four," not, "_neither_ of the four."

EITHER ALTERNATIVE. The word _alternative_ means a choice offered between two things. An _alternative writ_, for example, offers the _alternative_ of choosing between the doing of a specified act or of showing cause why it is not done. Such propositions, therefore, as, "You are at liberty to choose _either_ alternative," "_Two_ alternatives are presented to me," "_Several_ alternatives presented themselves," and the like, are not correct English. The word is correctly used thus: "I am confronted with a hard _alternative_: I must either denounce a friend or betray my trust." We rarely hear the word _alternate_ or any of its derivatives correctly pronounced.

ELDER. See OLDER.

ELEGANT. Professor Proctor says: "If you say to an American, 'This is a fine morning,' he is likely to reply, 'It is an _elegant_ morning,' or perhaps oftener by using simply the word _elegant_. This is not a pleasing use of the word." This is not American English, Professor, but popinjay English.

ELLIPSIS. The omission of a word or of words necessary to complete the grammatical construction, but not necessary to make the meaning clear, is called an _ellipsis_. We almost always, whether in speaking or in writing, leave out some of the words necessary to the _full_ expression of our meaning. For example, in dating a letter to-day, we should write, "New York, August 25, 1881," which would be, if fully written out, "I am now writing in the city of New York; this is the twenty-fifth day of August, and this month is in the one thousand eight hundred and eighty-first year of the Christian era." "I am going to Wallack's" means, "I am going to Wallack's _theatre_." "I shall spend the summer at my aunt's"; i. e., at my aunt's _house_.

By supplying the _ellipses_ we can often discover the errors in a sentence, if there are any.

ENJOY BAD HEALTH. As no one has ever been known to _enjoy_ bad health, it is better to employ some other form of expression than this. Say, for example, he is in _feeble_, or _delicate_, health.