How to Speak and Write Correctly

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_).