(2) When a quotation is embraced within another, the contained quotation has only single marks: Franklin said, "Most men come to believe 'honesty is the best policy.'"

(3) When a quotation consists of several paragraphs the quotation marks should precede each paragraph.

(4) Titles of books, pictures and newspapers when formally given are quoted.

(5) Often the names of ships are quoted though there is no occasion for it.

The Apostrophe should come under the comma rather than under the quotation marks or double comma. The word is Greek and signifies a turning away from. The letter elided or turned away is generally an e. In poetry and familiar dialogue the apostrophe marks the elision of a syllable, as "I've for I have"; "Thou'rt for thou art"; "you'll for you will," etc. Sometimes it is necessary to abbreviate a word by leaving out several letters. In such case the apostrophe takes the place of the omitted letters as "cont'd for continued." The apostrophe is used to denote the elision of the century in dates, where the century is understood or to save the repetition of a series of figures, as "The Spirit of '76"; "I served in the army during the years 1895, '96, '97, '98 and '99." The principal use of the apostrophe is to denote the possessive case. All nouns in the singular number whether proper names or not, and all nouns in the plural ending with any other letter than s, form the possessive by the addition of the apostrophe and the letter s. The only exceptions to this rule are, that, by poetical license the additional s may be elided in poetry for sake of the metre, and in the scriptural phrases "For goodness' sake." "For conscience' sake," "For Jesus' sake," etc. Custom has done away with the s and these phrases are now idioms of the language. All plural nouns ending in s form the possessive by the addition of the apostrophe only as boys', horses'. The possessive case of the personal pronouns never take the apostrophe, as ours, yours, hers, theirs.

CAPITAL LETTERS

Capital letters are used to give emphasis to or call attention to certain words to distinguish them from the context. In manuscripts they may be written small or large and are indicated by lines drawn underneath, two lines for SMALL CAPITALS and three lines for CAPITALS.

Some authors, notably Carlyle, make such use of Capitals that it degenerates into an abuse. They should only be used in their proper places as given in the table below.

(1) The first word of every sentence, in fact the first word in writing of any kind should begin with a capital; as, "Time flies." "My dear friend."

(2) Every direct quotation should begin with a capital; "Dewey said,— 'Fire, when you're ready, Gridley!'"

(3) Every direct question commences with a capital; "Let me ask you; 'How old are you?'"

(4) Every line of poetry begins with a capital; "Breathes there a man with soul so dead?"

(5) Every numbered clause calls for a capital: "The witness asserts: (1) That he saw the man attacked; (2) That he saw him fall; (3) That he saw his assailant flee."

(6) The headings of essays and chapters should be wholly in capitals; as, CHAPTER VIII—RULES FOR USE OF CAPITALS.

(7) In the titles of books, nouns, pronouns, adjectives and adverbs should begin with a capital; as, "Johnson's Lives of the Poets."

(8) In the Roman notation numbers are denoted by capitals; as, I II III V X L C D M—1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000.

(9) Proper names begin with a capital; as, "Jones, Johnson, Caesar, Mark Antony, England, Pacific, Christmas."

Such words as river, sea, mountain, etc., when used generally are common, not proper nouns, and require no capital. But when such are used with an adjective or adjunct to specify a particular object they become proper names, and therefore require a capital; as, "Mississippi River, North Sea, Alleghany Mountains," etc. In like manner the cardinal points north, south, east and west, when they are used to distinguish regions of a country are capitals; as, "The North fought against the South."

When a proper name is compounded with another word, the part which is not a proper name begins with a capital if it precedes, but with a small letter if it follows, the hyphen; as "Post-homeric," "Sunday-school."

(10) Words derived from proper names require a Capital; as, "American, Irish, Christian, Americanize, Christianize."

In this connection the names of political parties, religious sects and schools of thought begin with capitals; as, "Republican, Democrat, Whig, Catholic, Presbyterian, Rationalists, Free Thinkers."

(11) The titles of honorable, state and political offices begin with a capital; as, "President, Chairman, Governor, Alderman."

(12) The abbreviations of learned titles and college degrees call for capitals; as, "LL.D., M.A., B.S.," etc. Also the seats of learning conferring such degrees as, "Harvard University, Manhattan College," etc.

(13) When such relative words as father, mother, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, etc., precede a proper name, they are written and printed with capitals; as, Father Abraham, Mother Eddy, Brother John, Sister Jane, Uncle Jacob, Aunt Eliza. Father, when used to denote the early Christian writer, is begun with a capital; "Augustine was one of the learned Fathers of the Church."

(14) The names applied to the Supreme Being begin with capitals: "God, Lord, Creator, Providence, Almighty, The Deity, Heavenly Father, Holy One." In this respect the names applied to the Saviour also require capitals: "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Man of Galilee, The Crucified, The Anointed One." Also the designations of Biblical characters as "Lily of Israel, Rose of Sharon, Comfortress of the Afflicted, Help of Christians, Prince of the Apostles, Star of the Sea," etc. Pronouns referring to God and Christ take capitals; as, "His work, The work of Him, etc."

(15) Expressions used to designate the Bible or any particular division of it begin with a capital; as, "Holy Writ, The Sacred Book, Holy Book, God's Word, Old Testament, New Testament, Gospel of St. Matthew, Seven Penitential Psalms."

(16) Expressions based upon the Bible or in reference to Biblical characters begin with a capital: "Water of Life, Hope of Men, Help of Christians, Scourge of Nations."

(17) The names applied to the Evil One require capitals: "Beelzebub, Prince of Darkness, Satan, King of Hell, Devil, Incarnate Fiend, Tempter of Men, Father of Lies, Hater of Good."

(18) Words of very special importance, especially those which stand out as the names of leading events in history, have capitals; as, "The Revolution, The Civil War, The Middle Ages, The Age of Iron," etc.

(19) Terms which refer to great events in the history of the race require capitals; "The Flood, Magna Charta, Declaration of Independence."

(20) The names of the days of the week and the months of the year and the seasons are commenced with capitals: "Monday, March, Autumn."

(21) The Pronoun I and the interjection O always require the use of capitals. In fact all the interjections when uttered as exclamations commence with capitals: "Alas! he is gone." "Ah! I pitied him."

(22) All noms-de-guerre, assumed names, as well as names given for distinction, call for capitals, as, "The Wizard of the North," "Paul Pry," "The Northern Gael," "Sandy Sanderson," "Poor Robin," etc.

(23) In personification, that is, when inanimate things are represented as endowed with life and action, the noun or object personified begins with a capital; as, "The starry Night shook the dews from her wings." "Mild-eyed Day appeared," "The Oak said to the Beech—'I am stronger than you.'"



CHAPTER VI

LETTER WRITING

Principles of Letter-Writing—Forms—Notes

Many people seem to regard letter-writing as a very simple and easily acquired branch, but on the contrary it is one of the most difficult forms of composition and requires much patience and labor to master its details. In fact there are very few perfect letter-writers in the language. It constitutes the direct form of speech and may be called conversation at a distance. Its forms are so varied by every conceivable topic written at all times by all kinds of persons in all kinds of moods and tempers and addressed to all kinds of persons of varying degrees in society and of different pursuits in life, that no fixed rules can be laid down to regulate its length, style or subject matter. Only general suggestions can be made in regard to scope and purpose, and the forms of indicting set forth which custom and precedent have sanctioned.

The principles of letter-writing should be understood by everybody who has any knowledge of written language, for almost everybody at some time or other has necessity to address some friend or acquaintance at a distance, whereas comparatively few are called upon to direct their efforts towards any other kind of composition.

Formerly the illiterate countryman, when he had occasion to communicate with friends or relations, called in the peripatetic schoolmaster as his amanuensis, but this had one draw-back,—secrets had to be poured into an ear other than that for which they were intended, and often the confidence was betrayed.

Now, that education is abroad in the land, there is seldom any occasion for any person to call upon the service of another to compose and write a personal letter. Very few now-a-days are so grossly illiterate as not to be able to read and write. No matter how crude his effort may be it is better for any one to write his own letters than trust to another. Even if he should commence,—"deer fren, i lift up my pen to let ye no that i hove been sik for the past 3 weeks, hopping this will findye the same," his spelling and construction can be excused in view of the fact that his intention is good, and that he is doing his best to serve his own turn without depending upon others.

The nature, substance and tone of any letter depend upon the occasion that calls it forth, upon the person writing it and upon the person for whom it is intended. Whether it should be easy or formal in style, plain or ornate, light or serious, gay or grave, sentimental or matter-of-fact depend upon these three circumstances.

In letter writing the first and most important requisites are to be natural and simple; there should be no straining after effect, but simply a spontaneous out-pouring of thoughts and ideas as they naturally occur to the writer. We are repelled by a person who is stiff and labored in his conversation and in the same way the stiff and labored letter bores the reader. Whereas if it is light and in a conversational vein it immediately engages his attention.

The letter which is written with the greatest facility is the best kind of letter because it naturally expresses what is in the writer, he has not to search for his words, they flow in a perfect unison with the ideas he desires to communicate. When you write to your friend John Browne to tell him how you spent Sunday you have not to look around for the words, or study set phrases with a view to please or impress Browne, you just tell him the same as if he were present before you, how you spent the day, where you were, with whom you associated and the chief incidents that occurred during the time. Thus, you write natural and it is such writing that is adapted to epistolary correspondence.

There are different kinds of letters, each calling for a different style of address and composition, nevertheless the natural key should be maintained in all, that is to say, the writer should never attempt to convey an impression that he is other than what he is. It would be silly as well as vain for the common street laborer of a limited education to try to put on literary airs and emulate a college professor; he may have as good a brain, but it is not as well developed by education, and he lacks the polish which society confers. When writing a letter the street laborer should bear in mind that only the letter of a street-laborer is expected from him, no matter to whom his communication may be addressed and that neither the grammar nor the diction of a Chesterfield or Gladstone is looked for in his language. Still the writer should keep in mind the person to whom he is writing. If it is to an Archbishop or some other great dignitary of Church or state it certainly should be couched in terms different from those he uses to John Browne, his intimate friend. Just as he cannot say "Dear John" to an Archbishop, no more can he address him in the familiar words he uses to his friend of everyday acquaintance and companionship. Yet there is no great learning required to write to an Archbishop, no more than to an ordinary individual. All the laborer needs to know is the form of address and how to properly utilize his limited vocabulary to the best advantage. Here is the form for such a letter:

17 Second Avenue, New York City. January 1st, 1910.

Most Rev. P. A. Jordan, Archbishop of New York.

Most Rev. and dear Sir:— While sweeping the crossing at Fifth Avenue and 50th street on last Wednesday morning, I found the enclosed Fifty Dollar Bill, which I am sending to you in the hope that it may be restored to the rightful owner. I beg you will acknowledge receipt and should the owner be found I trust you will notify me, so that I may claim some reward for my honesty. I am, Most Rev. and dear Sir,

Very respectfully yours, Thomas Jones.

Observe the brevity of the letter. Jones makes no suggestions to the Archbishop how to find the owner, for he knows the course the Archbishop will adopt, of having the finding of the bill announced from the Church pulpits. Could Jones himself find the owner there would be no occasion to apply to the Archbishop.

This letter, it is true, is different from that which he would send to Browne. Nevertheless it is simple without being familiar, is just a plain statement, and is as much to the point for its purpose as if it were garnished with rhetoric and "words of learned length and thundering sound."

Letters may be divided into those of friendship, acquaintanceship, those of business relations, those written in an official capacity by public servants, those designed to teach, and those which give accounts of the daily happenings on the stage of life, in other words, news letters.

Letters of friendship are the most common and their style and form depend upon the degree of relationship and intimacy existing between the writers and those addressed. Between relatives and intimate friends the beginning and end may be in the most familiar form of conversation, either affectionate or playful. They should, however, never overstep the boundaries of decency and propriety, for it is well to remember that, unlike conversation, which only is heard by the ears for which it is intended, written words may come under eyes other than those for whom they were designed. Therefore, it is well never to write anything which the world may not read without detriment to your character or your instincts. You can be joyful, playful, jocose, give vent to your feelings, but never stoop to low language and, above all, to language savoring in the slightest degree of moral impropriety.

Business letters are of the utmost importance on account of the interests involved. The business character of a man or of a firm is often judged by the correspondence. On many occasions letters instead of developing trade and business interests and gaining clientele, predispose people unfavorably towards those whom they are designed to benefit. Ambiguous, slip-shod language is a detriment to success. Business letters should be clear, concise, to the point and, above all, honest, giving no wrong impressions or holding out any inducements that cannot be fulfilled. In business letters, just as in business conduct, honesty is always the best policy.

Official letters are mostly always formal. They should possess clearness, brevity and dignity of tone to impress the receivers with the proper respect for the national laws and institutions.

Letters designed to teach or didactic letters are in a class all by themselves. They are simply literature in the form of letters and are employed by some of the best writers to give their thoughts and ideas a greater emphasis. The most conspicuous example of this kind of composition is the book on Etiquette by Lord Chesterfield, which took the form of a series of letters to his son.

News letters are accounts of world happenings and descriptions of ceremonies and events sent into the newspapers. Some of the best authors of our time are newspaper men who write in an easy flowing style which is most readable, full of humor and fancy and which carries one along with breathless interest from beginning to end.

The principal parts of a letter are (1) the heading or introduction; (2) the body or substance of the letter; (3) the subscription or closing expression and signature; (4) the address or direction on the envelope. For the body of a letter no forms or rules can be laid down as it altogether depends on the nature of the letter and the relationship between the writer and the person addressed.

There are certain rules which govern the other three features and which custom has sanctioned. Every one should be acquainted with these rules.

THE HEADING

The Heading has three parts, viz., the name of the place, the date of writing and the designation of the person or persons addressed; thus:

73 New Street, Newark, N. J., February 1st, 1910. Messr. Ginn and Co., New York Gentlemen:

The name of the place should never be omitted; in cities, street and number should always be given, and except when the city is large and very conspicuous, so that there can be no question as to its identity with another of the same or similar name, the abbreviation of the State should be appended, as in the above, Newark, N. J. There is another Newark in the State of Ohio. Owing to failure to comply with this rule many letters go astray. The date should be on every letter, especially business letters. The date should never be put at the bottom in a business letter, but in friendly letters this may be done. The designation of the person or persons addressed differs according to the relations of the correspondents. Letters of friendship may begin in many ways according to the degrees of friendship or intimacy. Thus:

My dear Wife: My dear Husband: My dear Friend: My darling Mother: My dearest Love: Dear Aunt: Dear Uncle: Dear George: etc.

To mark a lesser degree of intimacy such formal designations as the following may be employed:

Dear Sir: My dear Sir: Dear Mr. Smith: Dear Madam: etc.

For clergymen who have the degree of Doctor of Divinity, the designation is as follows:

Rev. Alban Johnson, D. D. My dear Sir: or Rev. and dear Sir: or more familiarly Dear Dr. Johnson:

Bishops of the Roman and Anglican Communions are addressed as Right Reverend.

The Rt. Rev., the Bishop of Long Island. or The Rt. Rev. Frederick Burgess, Bishop of Long Island. Rt. Rev. and dear Sir:

Archbishops of the Roman Church are addressed as Most Reverend and Cardinals as Eminence. Thus:

The Most Rev. Archbishop Katzer. Most Rev. and dear Sir:

His Eminence, James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. May it please your Eminence:

The title of the Governor of a State or territory and of the President of the United States is Excellency. However, Honorable is more commonly applied to Governors:—

His Excellency, William Howard Taft, President of the United States.

Sir:—

His Excellency, Charles Evans Hughes, Governor of the State of New York.

Sir:—

Honorable Franklin Fort, Governor of New Jersey.

Sir:—

The general salutation for Officers of the Army and Navy is Sir. The rank and station should be indicated in full at the head of the letter, thus:

General Joseph Thompson, Commanding the Seventh Infantry.

Sir:

Rear Admiral Robert Atkinson, Commanding the Atlantic Squadron.

Sir:

The title of officers of the Civil Government is Honorable and they are addressed as Sir.

Hon. Nelson Duncan, Senator from Ohio.

Sir:

Hon. Norman Wingfield, Secretary of the Treasury.

Sir:

Hon. Rupert Gresham, Mayor of New York.

Sir:

Presidents and Professors of Colleges and Universities are generally addressed as Sir or Dear Sir.

Professor Ferguson Jenks, President of .......... University.

Sir: or Dear Sir:

Presidents of Societies and Associations are treated as business men and addressed as Sir or Dear Sir.

Mr. Joseph Banks, President of the Night Owls.

Dear Sir: or Sir:

Doctors of Medicine are addressed as Sir: My dear Sir: Dear Sir: and more familiarly My dear Dr: or Dear Dr: as

Ryerson Pitkin, M. D. Sir: Dear Sir: My dear Dr:

Ordinary people with no degrees or titles are addressed as Mr. and Mrs. and are designed Dear Sir: Dear Madam: and an unmarried woman of any age is addressed on the envelope as Miss So-and-so, but always designed in the letter as

Dear Madam:

The plural of Mr. as in addressing a firm is Messrs, and the corresponding salutation is Dear Sirs: or Gentlemen:

In England Esq. is used for Mr. as a mark of slight superiority and in this country it is sometimes used, but it is practically obsolete. Custom is against it and American sentiment as well. If it is used it should be only applied to lawyers and justices of the peace.

SUBSCRIPTION

The Subscription or ending of a letter consists of the term of respect or affection and the signature. The term depends upon the relation of the person addressed. Letters of friendship can close with such expressions as:

Yours lovingly, Yours affectionately, Devotedly yours, Ever yours, etc.

as between husbands and wives or between lovers. Such gushing terminations as Your Own Darling, Your own Dovey and other pet and silly endings should be avoided, as they denote shallowness. Love can be strongly expressed without dipping into the nonsensical and the farcical.

Formal expressions of Subscription are:

Yours Sincerely, Yours truly, Respectfully yours,

and the like, and these may be varied to denote the exact bearing or attitude the writer wishes to assume to the person addressed: as,

Very sincerely yours, Very respectfully yours, With deep respect yours, Yours very truly, etc.

Such elaborate endings as

"In the meantime with the highest respect, I am yours to command," "I have the honor to be, Sir, Your humble Servant," "With great expression of esteem, I am Sincerely yours," "Believe me, my dear Sir, Ever faithfully yours,"

are condemned as savoring too much of affectation.

It is better to finish formal letters without any such qualifying remarks. If you are writing to Mr. Ryan to tell him that you have a house for sale, after describing the house and stating the terms simply sign yourself

Your obedient Servant Yours very truly, Yours with respect, James Wilson.

Don't say you have the honor to be anything or ask him to believe anything, all you want to tell him is that you have a house for sale and that you are sincere, or hold him in respect as a prospective customer.

Don't abbreviate the signature as: Y'rs Resp'fly and always make your sex obvious. Write plainly

Yours truly, John Field

and not J. Field, so that the person to whom you send it may not take you for Jane Field.

It is always best to write the first name in full. Married women should prefix Mrs. to their names, as

Very sincerely yours, Mrs. Theodore Watson.

If you are sending a letter acknowledging a compliment or some kindness done you may say, Yours gratefully, or Yours very gratefully, in proportion to the act of kindness received.

It is not customary to sign letters of degrees or titles after your name, except you are a lord, earl or duke and only known by the title, but as we have no such titles in America it is unnecessary to bring this matter into consideration. Don't sign yourself,

Sincerely yours, Obadiah Jackson, M.A. or L.L. D.

If you're an M. A. or an L.L. D. people generally know it without your sounding your own trumpet. Many people, and especially clergymen, are fond of flaunting after their names degrees they have received honoris causa, that is, degrees as a mark of honor, without examination. Such degrees should be kept in the background. Many a deadhead has these degrees which he could never have earned by brain work.

Married women whose husbands are alive may sign the husband's name with the prefix Mrs: thus,

Yours sincerely, Mrs. William Southey.

but when the husband is dead the signature should be—

Yours sincerely, Mrs. Sarah Southey.

So when we receive a letter from a woman we are enabled to tell whether she has a husband living or is a widow. A woman separated from her husband but not a divorcee should not sign his name.

ADDRESS

The address of a letter consists of the name, the title and the residence.

Mr. Hugh Black, 112 Southgate Street, Altoona, Pa.

Intimate friends have often familiar names for each other, such as pet names, nicknames, etc., which they use in the freedom of conversation, but such names should never, under any circumstances, appear on the envelope. The subscription on the envelope should be always written with propriety and correctness and as if penned by an entire stranger. The only difficulty in the envelope inscription is the title. Every man is entitled to Mr. and every lady to Mrs. and every unmarried lady to Miss. Even a boy is entitled to Master. When more than one is addressed the title is Messrs. Mesdames is sometimes written of women. If the person addressed has a title it is courteous to use it, but titles never must be duplicated. Thus, we can write

Robert Stitt, M. D., but never Dr. Robert Stitt, M. D, or Mr. Robert Stitt, M. D.

In writing to a medical doctor it is well to indicate his profession by the letters M. D. so as to differentiate him from a D. D. It is better to write Robert Stitt, M. D., than Dr. Robert Stitt.

In the case of clergymen the prefix Rev. is retained even when they have other titles; as

Rev. Tracy Tooke, LL. D.

When a person has more titles than one it is customary to only give him the leading one. Thus instead of writing Rev. Samuel MacComb, B. A., M. A., B. Sc., Ph. D., LL. D., D. D. the form employed is Rev. Samuel MacComb, LL. D. LL. D. is appended in preference to D. D. because in most cases the "Rev." implies a "D. D." while comparatively few with the prefix "Rev." are entitled to "LL. D."

In the case of Honorables such as Governors, Judges, Members of Congress, and others of the Civil Government the prefix "Hon." does away with Mr. and Esq. Thus we write Hon. Josiah Snifkins, not Hon. Mr. Josiah Snifkins or Hon. Josiah Snifkins, Esq. Though this prefix Hon. is also often applied to Governors they should be addressed as Excellency. For instance:

His Excellency, Charles E. Hughes, Albany, N. Y.

In writing to the President the superscription on the envelope should be

To the President, Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C.

Professional men such as doctors and lawyers as well as those having legitimately earned College Degrees may be addressed on the envelopes by their titles, as

Jonathan Janeway, M. D. Hubert Houston, B. L. Matthew Marks, M. A., etc.

The residence of the person addressed should be plainly written out in full. The street and numbers should be given and the city or town written very legibly. If the abbreviation of the State is liable to be confounded or confused with that of another then the full name of the State should be written. In writing the residence on the envelope, instead of putting it all in one line as is done at the head of a letter, each item of the residence forms a separate line. Thus,

Liberty, Sullivan County, New York.

215 Minna St., San Francisco, California.

There should be left a space for the postage stamp in the upper right hand corner. The name and title should occupy a line that is about central between the top of the envelope and the bottom. The name should neither be too much to right or left but located in the centre, the beginning and end at equal distances from either end.

In writing to large business concerns which are well known or to public or city officials it is sometimes customary to leave out number and street. Thus,

Messrs. Seigel, Cooper Co., New York City,

Hon. William J. Gaynor, New York City.

NOTES

Notes may be regarded as letters in miniature confined chiefly to invitations, acceptances, regrets and introductions, and modern etiquette tends towards informality in their composition. Card etiquette, in fact, has taken the place of ceremonious correspondence and informal notes are now the rule. Invitations to dinner and receptions are now mostly written on cards. "Regrets" are sent back on visiting cards with just the one word "Regrets" plainly written thereon. Often on cards and notes of invitation we find the letters R. S. V. P. at the bottom. These letters stand for the French repondez s'il vous plait, which means "Reply, if you please," but there is no necessity to put this on an invitation card as every well-bred person knows that a reply is expected. In writing notes to young ladies of the same family it should be noted that the eldest daughter of the house is entitled to the designation Miss without any Christian name, only the surname appended. Thus if there are three daughters in the Thompson family Martha, the eldest, Susan and Jemina, Martha is addressed as Miss Thompson and the other two as Miss Susan Thompson and Miss Jemina Thompson respectively.

Don't write the word addressed on the envelope of a note.

Don't seal a note delivered by a friend.

Don't write a note on a postal card.

Here are a few common forms:—

FORMAL INVITATIONS

Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wagstaff request the honor of Mr. McAdoo's presence on Friday evening, June 15th, at 8 o'clock to meet the Governor of the Fort. 19 Woodbine Terrace June 8th, 1910.

This is an invitation to a formal reception calling for evening dress. Here is Mr. McAdoo's reply in the third person:—

Mr. McAdoo presents his compliments to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wagstaff and accepts with great pleasure their invitation to meet the Governor of the Fort on the evening of June fifteenth. 215 Beacon Street, June 10th, 1910.

Here is how Mr. McAdoo might decline the invitation:—

Mr. McAdoo regrets that owing to a prior engagement he must forego the honor of paying his respects to Mr. and Mrs. Wagstaff and the Governor of the Fort on the evening of June fifteenth. 215 Beacon St., June 10th, 1910.

Here is a note addressed, say to Mr. Jeremiah Reynolds.

Mr. and Mrs. Oldham at home on Wednesday evening October ninth from seven to eleven. 21 Ashland Avenue, October 5th.

Mr. Reynolds makes reply:—

Mr. Reynolds accepts with high appreciation the honor of Mr. and Mrs. Oldham's invitation for Wednesday evening October ninth. Windsor Hotel October 7th

or

Mr. Reynolds regrets that his duties render it impossible for him to accept Mr. and Mrs. Oldham's kind invitation for the evening of October ninth. Windsor Hotel, October 7th,

Sometimes less informal invitations are sent on small specially designed note paper in which the first person takes the place of the third. Thus

360 Pine St., Dec. 11th, 1910. Dear Mr. Saintsbury: Mr. Johnson and I should be much pleased to have you dine with us and a few friends next Thursday, the fifteenth, at half past seven. Yours sincerely, Emma Burnside.

Mr. Saintsbury's reply:

57 Carlyle Strand Dec. 13th, 1910. Dear Mrs. Burnside: Let me accept very appreciatively your invitation to dine with Mr. Burnside and you on next Thursday, the fifteenth, at half past seven. Yours sincerely, Henry Saintsbury. Mrs. Alexander Burnside.

NOTES OF INTRODUCTION

Notes of introduction should be very circumspect as the writers are in reality vouching for those whom they introduce. Here is a specimen of such a note.

603 Lexington Ave., New York City, June 15th, 1910.

Rev. Cyrus C. Wiley, D. D., Newark, N. J. My dear Dr. Wiley: I take the liberty of presenting to you my friend, Stacy Redfern, M. D., a young practitioner, who is anxious to locate in Newark. I have known him many years and can vouch for his integrity and professional standing. Any courtesy and kindness which you may show him will be very much appreciated by me. Very sincerely yours, Franklin Jewett.



CHAPTER VII

ERRORS

Mistakes—Slips of Authors—Examples and Corrections—Errors of Redundancy.

In the following examples the word or words in parentheses are uncalled for and should be omitted:

1. Fill the glass (full).

2. They appeared to be talking (together) on private affairs.

3. I saw the boy and his sister (both) in the garden.

4. He went into the country last week and returned (back) yesterday.

5. The subject (matter) of his discourse was excellent.

6. You need not wonder that the (subject) matter of his discourse was excellent; it was taken from the Bible.

7. They followed (after) him, but could not overtake him.

8. The same sentiments may be found throughout (the whole of) the book.

9. I was very ill every day (of my life) last week.

10. That was the (sum and) substance of his discourse.

11. He took wine and water and mixed them (both) together.

12. He descended (down) the steps to the cellar.

13. He fell (down) from the top of the house.

14. I hope you will return (again) soon.

15. The things he took away he restored (again).

16. The thief who stole my watch was compelled to restore it (back again).

17. It is equally (the same) to me whether I have it today or tomorrow.

18. She said, (says she) the report is false; and he replied, (says he) if it be not correct I have been misinformed.

19. I took my place in the cars (for) to go to New York.

20. They need not (to) call upon him.

21. Nothing (else) but that would satisfy him.

22. Whenever I ride in the cars I (always) find it prejudicial to my health.

23. He was the first (of all) at the meeting.

24. He was the tallest of (all) the brothers.

25. You are the tallest of (all) your family.

26. Whenever I pass the house he is (always) at the door.

27. The rain has penetrated (through) the roof.

28. Besides my uncle and aunt there was (also) my grandfather at the church.

29. It should (ever) be your constant endeavor to please your family.

30. If it is true as you have heard (then) his situation is indeed pitiful.

31. Either this (here) man or that (there) woman has (got) it.

32. Where is the fire (at)?

33. Did you sleep in church? Not that I know (of).

34. I never before (in my life) met (with) such a stupid man.

35. (For) why did he postpone it?

36. Because (why) he could not attend.

37. What age is he? (Why) I don't know.

38. He called on me (for) to ask my opinion.

39. I don't know where I am (at).

40. I looked in (at) the window.

41. I passed (by) the house.

42. He (always) came every Sunday.

43. Moreover, (also) we wish to say he was in error.

44. It is not long (ago) since he was here.

45. Two men went into the wood (in order) to cut (down) trees.

Further examples of redundancy might be multiplied. It is very common in newspaper writing where not alone single words but entire phrases are sometimes brought in, which are unnecessary to the sense or explanation of what is written.

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS OF STANDARD AUTHORS

Even the best speakers and writers are sometimes caught napping. Many of our standard authors to whom we have been accustomed to look up as infallible have sinned more or less against the fundamental principles of grammar by breaking the rules regarding one or more of the nine parts of speech. In fact some of them have recklessly trespassed against all nine, and still they sit on their pedestals of fame for the admiration of the crowd. Macaulay mistreated the article. He wrote,—"That a historian should not record trifles is perfectly true." He should have used an.

Dickens also used the article incorrectly. He refers to "Robinson Crusoe" as "an universally popular book," instead of a universally popular book.

The relation between nouns and pronouns has always been a stumbling block to speakers and writers. Hallam in his Literature of Europe writes, "No one as yet had exhibited the structure of the human kidneys, Vesalius having only examined them in dogs." This means that Vesalius examined human kidneys in dogs. The sentence should have been, "No one had as yet exhibited the kidneys in human beings, Vesalius having examined such organs in dogs only."

Sir Arthur Helps in writing of Dickens, states—"I knew a brother author of his who received such criticisms from him (Dickens) very lately and profited by it." Instead of it the word should be them to agree with criticisms.

Here are a few other pronominal errors from leading authors:

"Sir Thomas Moore in general so writes it, although not many others so late as him." Should be he.—Trench's English Past and Present.

"What should we gain by it but that we should speedily become as poor as them." Should be they.—Alison's Essay on Macaulay.

"If the king gives us leave you or I may as lawfully preach, as them that do." Should be they or those, the latter having persons understood.—Hobbes's History of Civil Wars.

"The drift of all his sermons was, to prepare the Jews for the reception of a prophet, mightier than him, and whose shoes he was not worthy to bear." Should be than he.—Atterbury's Sermons.

"Phalaris, who was so much older than her." Should be she.—Bentley's Dissertation on Phalaris.

"King Charles, and more than him, the duke and the Popish faction were at liberty to form new schemes." Should be than he.—Bolingbroke's Dissertations on Parties.

"We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the same proportion more than us." Should be than we.—Swift's Conduct of the Allies.

In all the above examples the objective cases of the pronouns have been used while the construction calls for nominative cases.

"Let thou and I the battle try"—Anon.

Here let is the governing verb and requires an objective case after it; therefore instead of thou and I, the words should be you (sing.) and me.

"Forever in this humble cell, Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell" —Prior.

Here thee and I should be the objectives you and me.

The use of the relative pronoun trips the greatest number of authors.

Even in the Bible we find the relative wrongly translated:

Whom do men say that I am?—St. Matthew.

Whom think ye that I am?—Acts of the Apostles.

Who should be written in both cases because the word is not in the objective governed by say or think, but in the nominative dependent on the verb am.

"Who should I meet at the coffee house t'other night, but my old friend?"—Steele.

"It is another pattern of this answerer's fair dealing, to give us hints that the author is dead, and yet lay the suspicion upon somebody, I know not who, in the country."—Swift's Tale of a Tub.

"My son is going to be married to I don't know who."—Goldsmith's Good-natured Man.

The nominative who in the above examples should be the objective whom.

The plural nominative ye of the pronoun thou is very often used for the objective you, as in the following:

"His wrath which will one day destroy ye both."—Milton.

"The more shame for ye; holy men I thought ye."—Shakespeare.

"I feel the gales that from ye blow."—Gray.

"Tyrants dread ye, lest your just decree Transfer the power and set the people free."—Prior.

Many of the great writers have played havoc with the adjective in the indiscriminate use of the degrees of comparison.

"Of two forms of the same word, use the fittest."—Morell.

The author here in trying to give good advice sets a bad example. He should have used the comparative degree, "Fitter."

Adjectives which have a comparative or superlative signification do not admit the addition of the words more, most, or the terminations, er, est, hence the following examples break this rule:

"Money is the most universal incitement of human misery."—Gibbon's Decline and Fall.

"The chiefest of which was known by the name of Archon among the Grecians."—Dryden's Life of Plutarch.

"The chiefest and largest are removed to certain magazines they call libraries."—Swift's Battle of the Books.

The two chiefest properties of air, its gravity and elastic force, have been discovered by mechanical experiments.—Arbuthno.

"From these various causes, which in greater or lesser degree, affected every individual in the colony, the indignation of the people became general."—Robertson's History of America.

"The extremest parts of the earth were meditating a submission." —Atterbury's Sermons.

"The last are indeed more preferable because they are founded on some new knowledge or improvement in the mind of man."—Addison, Spectator.

"This was in reality the easiest manner of the two."—Shaftesbury's Advice to an Author.

"In every well formed mind this second desire seems to be the strongest of the two."—Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments.

In these examples the superlative is wrongly used for the comparative. When only two objects are compared the comparative form must be used.

Of impossibility there are no degrees of comparison, yet we find the following:

"As it was impossible they should know the words, thoughts and secret actions of all men, so it was more impossible they should pass judgment on them according to these things."—Whitby's Necessity of the Christian Religion.

A great number of authors employ adjectives for adverbs. Thus we find:

"I shall endeavor to live hereafter suitable to a man in my station." —Addison.

"I can never think so very mean of him."—Bentley's Dissertation on Phalaris.

"His expectations run high and the fund to supply them is extreme scanty."—Lancaster's Essay on Delicacy.

The commonest error in the use of the verb is the disregard of the concord between the verb and its subject. This occurs most frequently when the subject and the verb are widely separated, especially if some other noun of a different number immediately precedes the verb. False concords occur very often after either, or, neither, nor, and much, more, many, everyone, each.

Here are a few authors' slips:—

"The terms in which the sale of a patent were communicated to the public."—Junius's Letters.

"The richness of her arms and apparel were conspicuous."—Gibbon's Decline and Fall.

"Everyone of this grotesque family were the creatures of national genius."—D'Israeli.

"He knows not what spleen, languor or listlessness are."—Blair's Sermons.

"Each of these words imply, some pursuit or object relinquished." —Ibid.

"Magnus, with four thousand of his supposed accomplices were put to death."—Gibbon.

"No nation gives greater encouragements to learning than we do; yet at the same time none are so injudicious in the application." —Goldsmith.

"There's two or three of us have seen strange sights."—Shakespeare.

The past participle should not be used for the past tense, yet the learned Byron overlooked this fact. He thus writes in the Lament of Tasso:—

"And with my years my soul begun to pant With feelings of strange tumult and soft pain."

Here is another example from Savage's Wanderer in which there is double sinning:

"From liberty each nobler science sprung, A Bacon brighten'd and a Spenser sung."

Other breaches in regard to the participles occur in the following:—

"Every book ought to be read with the same spirit and in the same manner as it is writ"—Fielding's Tom Jones.

"The Court of Augustus had not wore off the manners of the republic" —Hume's Essays.

"Moses tells us that the fountains of the earth were broke open or clove asunder."—Burnet.

"A free constitution when it has been shook by the iniquity of former administrations."—Bolingbroke.

"In this respect the seeds of future divisions were sowed abundantly." —Ibid.

In the following example the present participle is used for the infinitive mood:

"It is easy distinguishing the rude fragment of a rock from the splinter of a statue."—Gilfillan's Literary Portraits.

Distinguishing here should be replaced by to distinguish.

The rules regarding shall and will are violated in the following:

"If we look within the rough and awkward outside, we will be richly rewarded by its perusal."—Gilfillan's Literary Portraits.

"If I should declare them and speak of them, they should be more than I am able to express."—Prayer Book Revision of Psalms XI.

"If I would declare them and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered."—Ibid.

"Without having attended to this, we will be at a loss, in understanding several passages in the classics."—Blair's Lectures.

"We know to what cause our past reverses have been owing and we will have ourselves to blame, if they are again incurred."—Alison's History of Europe.

Adverbial mistakes often occur in the best writers. The adverb rather is a word very frequently misplaced. Archbishop Trench in his "English Past and Present" writes, "It rather modified the structure of our sentences than the elements of our vocabulary." This should have been written,—"It modified the structure of our sentences rather than the elements of our vocabulary."

"So far as his mode of teaching goes he is rather a disciple of Socrates than of St. Paul or Wesley." Thus writes Leslie Stephens of Dr. Johnson. He should have written,—" So far as his mode of teaching goes he is a disciple of Socrates rather than of St. Paul or Wesley."

The preposition is a part of speech which is often wrongly used by some of the best writers. Certain nouns, adjectives and verbs require particular prepositions after them, for instance, the word different always takes the preposition from after it; prevail takes upon; averse takes to; accord takes with, and so on.

In the following examples the prepositions in parentheses are the ones that should have been used:

"He found the greatest difficulty of (in) writing."—Hume's History of England.

"If policy can prevail upon (over) force."—Addison.

"He made the discovery and communicated to (with) his friends." —Swift's Tale of a Tub.

"Every office of command should be intrusted to persons on (in) whom the parliament shall confide."—Macaulay.

Several of the most celebrated writers infringe the canons of style by placing prepositions at the end of sentences. For instance Carlyle, in referring to the Study of Burns, writes:—"Our own contributions to it, we are aware, can be but scanty and feeble; but we offer them with good will, and trust they may meet with acceptance from those they are intended for."

—"for whom they are intended," he should have written.

"Most writers have some one vein which they peculiarly and obviously excel in."—William Minto.

This sentence should read,—Most writers have some one vein in which they peculiarly and obviously excel.

Many authors use redundant words which repeat the same thought and idea. This is called tautology.

"Notwithstanding which (however) poor Polly embraced them all around." —Dickens.

"I judged that they would (mutually) find each other."—Crockett.

"....as having created a (joint) partnership between the two Powers in the Morocco question."—The Times.

"The only sensible position (there seems to be) is to frankly acknowledge our ignorance of what lies beyond."—Daily Telegraph.

"Lord Rosebery has not budged from his position—splendid, no doubt,—of (lonely) isolation."—The Times.

"Miss Fox was (often) in the habit of assuring Mrs. Chick."—Dickens.

"The deck (it) was their field of fame."—Campbell.

"He had come up one morning, as was now (frequently) his wont," —Trollope.

The counsellors of the Sultan (continue to) remain sceptical —The Times.

Seriously, (and apart from jesting), this is no light matter.—Bagehot.

To go back to your own country with (the consciousness that you go back with) the sense of duty well done.—Lord Halsbury.

The Peresviet lost both her fighting-tops and (in appearance) looked the most damaged of all the ships—The Times.

Counsel admitted that, that was a fair suggestion to make, but he submitted that it was borne out by the (surrounding) circumstances. —Ibid.

Another unnecessary use of words and phrases is that which is termed circumlocution, a going around the bush when there is no occasion for it,—save to fill space.

It may be likened to a person walking the distance of two sides of a triangle to reach the objective point. For instance in the quotation: "Pope professed to have learned his poetry from Dryden, whom, whenever an opportunity was presented, he praised through the whole period of his existence with unvaried liberality; and perhaps his character may receive some illustration, of a comparison he instituted between him and the man whose pupil he was" much of the verbiage may be eliminated and the sentence thus condensed:

"Pope professed himself the pupil of Dryden, whom he lost no opportunity of praising; and his character may be illustrated by a comparison with his master."

"His life was brought to a close in 1910 at an age not far from the one fixed by the sacred writer as the term of human existence."

This in brevity can be put, "His life was brought to a close at the age of seventy;" or, better yet, "He died at the age of seventy."

"The day was intensely cold, so cold in fact that the thermometer crept down to the zero mark," can be expressed: "The day was so cold the thermometer registered zero."

Many authors resort to circumlocution for the purpose of "padding," that is, filling space, or when they strike a snag in writing upon subjects of which they know little or nothing. The young writer should steer clear of it and learn to express his thoughts and ideas as briefly as possible commensurate with lucidity of expression.

Volumes of errors in fact, in grammar, diction and general style, could be selected from the works of the great writers, a fact which eloquently testifies that no one is infallible and that the very best is liable to err at times. However, most of the erring in the case of these writers arises from carelessness or hurry, not from a lack of knowledge.

As a general rule it is in writing that the scholar is liable to slip; in oral speech he seldom makes a blunder. In fact, there are many people who are perfect masters of speech,—who never make a blunder in conversation, yet who are ignorant of the very principles of grammar and would not know how to write a sentence correctly on paper. Such persons have been accustomed from infancy to hear the language spoken correctly and so the use of the proper words and forms becomes a second nature to them. A child can learn what is right as easy as what is wrong and whatever impressions are made on the mind when it is plastic will remain there. Even a parrot can be taught the proper use of language. Repeat to a parrot.—"Two and two make four" and it never will say "two and two makes four."

In writing, however, it is different. Without a knowledge of the fundamentals of grammar we may be able to speak correctly from association with good speakers, but without such a knowledge we cannot hope to write the language correctly. To write even a common letter we must know the principles of construction, the relationship of one word to another. Therefore, it is necessary for everybody to understand at least the essentials of the grammar of his own language.



CHAPTER VIII

PITFALLS TO AVOID

Common Stumbling Blocks—Peculiar Constructions—Misused Forms.

ATTRACTION

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

(1) "The partition which the two ministers made of the powers of government were singularly happy."—Macaulay.

(Should be was to agree with its subject, partition.)

(2) "One at least of the qualities which fit it for training ordinary men unfit it for training an extraordinary man."—Bagehot.

(Should be unfits to agree with subject one.)

(3) "The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those dangerous influences whose appearance were the chief cause of our action."—The Times.

(Should be was to agree with appearance.)

(4) "An immense amount of confusion and indifference prevail in these days."—Telegraph.

(Should be prevails to agree with amount.)

ELLIPSIS

Errors in ellipsis occur chiefly with prepositions.

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

(The preposition to should come after objection.)

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

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

THE SPLIT INFINITIVE

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

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

ONE

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

ONLY

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

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

ALONE

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

OTHER AND ANOTHER

These are words which often give to expressions a meaning far from that intended. Thus, "I have nothing to do with that other rascal across the street," certainly means that I am a rascal myself. "I sent the despatch to my friend, but another villain intercepted it," clearly signifies that my friend is a villain.

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

AND WITH THE RELATIVE

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

LOOSE PARTICIPLES

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

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

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

BROKEN CONSTRUCTION

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

DOUBLE NEGATIVE

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

Often we hear such expressions as "He was not asked to give no opinion," expressing the very opposite of what is intended. This sentence implies that he was asked to give his opinion. The double negative, therefore, should be carefully avoided, for it is insidious and is liable to slip in and the writer remain unconscious of its presence until the eye of the critic detects it.

FIRST PERSONAL PRONOUN

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

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

SEQUENCE OF TENSES

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

If we wish to speak of something relating to a time prior to that indicated in the past tense we must use the perfect tense of the infinitive; as, "He appeared to have seen better days." We should say "I expected to meet him," not "I expected to have met him." "We intended to visit you," not "to have visited you." "I hoped they would arrive," not "I hoped they would have arrived." "I thought I should catch the bird," not "I thought I should have caught the bird." "I had intended to go to the meeting," not "I had intended to have gone to the meeting."

BETWEEN—AMONG

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

LESS—FEWER

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

FURTHER—FARTHER

Further is commonly used to denote quantity, farther to denote distance. "I have walked farther than you," "I need no further supply" are correct.

EACH OTHER—ONE ANOTHER

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

EACH, EVERY, EITHER, NEITHER

These words are continually misapplied. Each can be applied to two or any higher number of objects to signify every one of the number independently. Every requires more than two to be spoken of and denotes all the persons or things taken separately. Either denotes one or the other of two, and should not be used to include both. Neither is the negative of either, denoting not the other, and not the one, and relating to two persons or things considered separately.

The following examples illustrate the correct usage of these words:

Each man of the crew received a reward.

Every man in the regiment displayed bravery.

We can walk on either side of the street.

Neither of the two is to blame.

NEITHER-NOR

When two singular subjects are connected by neither, nor use a singular verb; as, "Neither John nor James was there," not were there.

NONE

Custom Has sanctioned the use of this word both with a singular and plural; as—"None is so blind as he who will not see" and "None are so blind as they who will not see." However, as it is a contraction of no one it is better to use the singular verb.

RISE-RAISE

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

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

LAY-LIE

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

Of a carpet or any inanimate subject we should say, "It lies on the floor," "A knife lies on the table," not lays. But of a person we say—"He lays the knife on the table," not "He lies——." Lay being the past tense of the neuter to lie (down) we should say, "He lay on the bed," and lain being its past participle we must also say "He has lain on the bed."

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

It is imperative to remember in using these verbs that to lay means to do something, and to lie means to be in a state of rest.

SAYS I—I SAID

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

IN—INTO

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

EAT—ATE

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

SEQUENCE OF PERSON

Remember that the first person takes precedence of the second and the second takes precedence of the third. When Cardinal Wolsey said Ego et Rex (I and the King), he showed he was a good grammarian, but a bad courtier.

AM COME—HAVE COME

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

PAST TENSE—PAST PARTICIPLE

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

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

PREPOSITIONS AND THE OBJECTIVE CASE

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

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

SUMMON—SUMMONS

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

It is correct to say "I shall get a summons for him," not a summon.

UNDENIABLE—UNEXCEPTIONABLE

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

THE PRONOUNS

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

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

Don't say "It is me;" say "It is I" The verb To Be of which is is a part takes the same case after it that it has before it. This holds good in all situations as well as with pronouns.

The verb To Be also requires the pronouns joined to it to be in the same case as a pronoun asking a question; The nominative I requires the nominative who and the objectives me, him, her, its, you, them, require the objective whom.

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

After transitive verbs always use the objective cases of the pronouns. For "He and they we have seen," say "Him and them we have seen."

THAT FOR SO

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

THESE—THOSE

Don't say, These kind; those sort. Kind and sort are each singular and require the singular pronouns this and that. In connection with these demonstrative adjective pronouns remember that this and these refer to what is near at hand, that and those to what is more distant; as, this book (near me), that book (over there), these boys (near), those boys (at a distance).

THIS MUCH—THUS MUCH

"This much is certain" should be "Thus much or so much is certain."

FLEE—FLY

These are two separate verbs and must not be interchanged. The principal parts of flee are flee, fled, fled; those of fly are fly, flew, flown. To flee is generally used in the meaning of getting out of danger. To fly means to soar as a bird. To say of a man "He has flown from the place" is wrong; it should be "He has fled from the place." We can say with propriety that "A bird has flown from the place."

THROUGH—THROUGHOUT

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

VOCATION AND AVOCATION

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

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

WAS—WERE

In the subjunctive mood the plural form were should be used with a singular subject; as, "If I were," not was. Remember the plural form of the personal pronoun you always takes were, though it may denote but one. Thus, "You were," never "you was." "If I was him" is a very common expression. Note the two mistakes in it,—that of the verb implying a condition, and that of the objective case of the pronoun. It should read If I were he. This is another illustration of the rule regarding the verb To Be, taking the same case after it as before it; were is part of the verb To Be, therefore as the nominative (I) goes before it, the nominative (he) should come after it.

A OR AN

A becomes an before a vowel or before h mute for the sake of euphony or agreeable sound to the ear. An apple, an orange, an heir, an honor, etc.



CHAPTER IX

STYLE

Diction—Purity—Propriety—Precision.

It is the object of every writer to put his thoughts into as effective form as possible so as to make a good impression on the reader. A person may have noble thoughts and ideas but be unable to express them in such a way as to appeal to others, consequently he cannot exert the full force of his intellectuality nor leave the imprint of his character upon his time, whereas many a man but indifferently gifted may wield such a facile pen as to attract attention and win for himself an envious place among his contemporaries.

In everyday life one sees illustrations of men of excellent mentality being cast aside and ones of mediocre or in some cases, little, if any, ability chosen to fill important places. The former are unable to impress their personality; they have great thoughts, great ideas, but these thoughts and ideas are locked up in their brains and are like prisoners behind the bars struggling to get free. The key of language which would open the door is wanting, hence they have to remain locked up.

Many a man has to pass through the world unheard of and of little benefit to it or himself, simply because he cannot bring out what is in him and make it subservient to his will. It is the duty of every one to develop his best, not only for the benefit of himself but for the good of his fellow men. It is not at all necessary to have great learning or acquirements, the laborer is as useful in his own place as the philosopher in his; nor is it necessary to have many talents. One talent rightly used is much better than ten wrongly used. Often a man can do more with one than his contemporary can do with ten, often a man can make one dollar go farther than twenty in the hands of his neighbor, often the poor man lives more comfortably than the millionaire. All depends upon the individual himself. If he make right use of what the Creator has given him and live according to the laws of God and nature he is fulfilling his allotted place in the universal scheme of creation, in other words, when he does his best, he is living up to the standard of a useful manhood.

Now in order to do his best a man of ordinary intelligence and education should be able to express himself correctly both in speaking and writing, that is, he should be able to convey his thoughts in an intelligent manner which the simplest can understand. The manner in which a speaker or writer conveys his thoughts is known as his Style. In other words Style may be defined as the peculiar manner in which a man expresses his conceptions through the medium of language. It depends upon the choice of words and their arrangement to convey a meaning. Scarcely any two writers have exactly the same style, that is to say, express their ideas after the same peculiar form, just as no two mortals are fashioned by nature in the same mould, so that one is an exact counterpart of the other.

Just as men differ in the accent and tones of their voices, so do they differ in the construction of their language.

Two reporters sent out on the same mission, say to report a fire, will verbally differ in their accounts though materially both descriptions will be the same as far as the leading facts are concerned. One will express himself in a style different from the other.

If you are asked to describe the dancing of a red-haired lady at the last charity ball you can either say—"The ruby Circe, with the Titian locks glowing like the oriflamme which surrounds the golden god of day as he sinks to rest amid the crimson glory of the burnished West, gave a divine exhibition of the Terpsichorean art which thrilled the souls of the multitude" or, you can simply say—"The red-haired lady danced very well and pleased the audience."

The former is a specimen of the ultra florid or bombastic style which may be said to depend upon the pomposity of verbosity for its effect, the latter is a specimen of simple natural Style. Needless to say it is to be preferred. The other should be avoided. It stamps the writer as a person of shallowness, ignorance and inexperience. It has been eliminated from the newspapers. Even the most flatulent of yellow sheets no longer tolerate it in their columns. Affectation and pedantry in style are now universally condemned.

It is the duty of every speaker and writer to labor after a pleasing style. It gains him an entrance where he would otherwise be debarred. Often the interest of a subject depends as much on the way it is presented as on the subject itself. One writer will make it attractive, another repulsive. For instance take a passage in history. Treated by one historian it is like a desiccated mummy, dry, dull, disgusting, while under the spell of another it is, as it were, galvanized into a virile living thing which not only pleases but captivates the reader.

DICTION

The first requisite of style is choice of words, and this comes under the head of Diction, the property of style which has reference to the words and phrases used in speaking and writing. The secret of literary skill from any standpoint consists in putting the right word in the right place. In order to do this it is imperative to know the meaning of the words we use, their exact literal meaning. Many synonymous words are seemingly interchangeable and appear as if the same meaning were applicable to three or four of them at the same time, but when all such words are reduced to a final analysis it is clearly seen that there is a marked difference in their meaning. For instance grief and sorrow seem to be identical, but they are not. Grief is active, sorrow is more or less passive; grief is caused by troubles and misfortunes which come to us from the outside, while sorrow is often the consequence of our own acts. Grief is frequently loud and violent, sorrow is always quiet and retiring. Grief shouts, Sorrow remains calm.

If you are not sure of the exact meaning of a word look it up immediately in the dictionary. Sometimes some of our great scholars are puzzled over simple words in regard to meaning, spelling or pronunciation. Whenever you meet a strange word note it down until you discover its meaning and use. Read the best books you can get, books written by men and women who are acknowledged masters of language, and study how they use their words, where they place them in the sentences, and the meanings they convey to the readers.

Mix in good society. Listen attentively to good talkers and try to imitate their manner of expression. If a word is used you do not understand, don't be ashamed to ask its meaning.

True, a small vocabulary will carry you through, but it is an advantage to have a large one. When you live alone a little pot serves just as well as a large one to cook your victuals and it is handy and convenient, but when your friends or neighbors come to dine with you, you will need a much larger pot and it is better to have it in store, so that you will not be put to shame for your scantiness of furnishings.

Get as many words as you possibly can—if you don't need them now, pack them away in the garrets of your brain so that you can call upon them if you require them.

Keep a note book, jot down the words you don't understand or clearly understand and consult the dictionary when you get time.

PURITY

Purity of style consists in using words which are reputable, national and present, which means that the words are in current use by the best authorities, that they are used throughout the nation and not confined to one particular part, and that they are words in constant use at the present time.

There are two guiding principles in the choice of words,—good use and good taste. Good use tells us whether a word is right or wrong; good taste, whether it is adapted to our purpose or not.