The Verbalist Part 3

CARRY. See BRING.

CASE. Many persons of considerable culture continually make mistakes in conversation in the use of the cases, and we sometimes meet with gross errors of this kind in the writings of authors of repute. Witness the following: "And everybody is to know him except _I_."--George Merideth in "The Tragic Comedies," Eng. ed., vol. i, p. 33. "Let's you and _I_ go": say, _me_. We can not say, Let _I_ go. Properly, Let's go, i. e., let us go, or, let you and _me_ go. "He is as good as _me_": say, as _I_. "She is as tall as _him_": say, as _he_. "You are older than _me_": say, than _I_. "n.o.body said so but _he_": say, but _him_. "Every one can master a grief but _he_ that hath it": correctly, but _him_. "John went out with James and _I_": say, and _me_. "You are stronger than _him_": say, than _he_. "Between you and _I_": say, and _me_. "Between you and _they_": say, and _them_. "He gave it to John and _I_": say, and _me_. "You told John and _I_": say, and _me_. "He sat between him and _I_": say, and _me_. "He expects to see you and _I_": say, and _me_.

"You were a dunce to do it. Who? _me_?" say, _I_. Supply the ellipsis, and we should have, Who? _me_ a dunce to do it? "Where are you going?

Who? _me_?" say, _I_. We can't say, _me_ going. "_Who_ do you mean?"

say, _whom_. "Was it _them_?" say, _they_. "If I _was him_, I would do it": say, _were he_. "If I _was her_, I would not go": say, _were she_.

"Was it _him_?" say, _he_. "Was it _her_?" say, _she_. "For the benefit of those _whom_ he thought were his friends": say, _who_. This error is not easy to detect on account of the parenthetical words that follow it.

If we drop them, the mistake is very apparent; thus, "For the benefit of those _whom_ were his friends."

"On the supposition," says Bain, "that the interrogative _who_ has _whom_ for its objective, the following are errors: '_who_ do you take me to be?' '_who_ should I meet the other day?' '_who_ is it by?' '_who_ did you give it to?' '_who_ to?' '_who_ for?' But, considering that these expressions _occur with the best writers and speakers_, that they _are more energetic_ than the other form, and that they _lead to no ambiguity_, it may be doubted whether grammarians have not exceeded their province in condemning them."

Cobbett, in writing of the p.r.o.nouns, says: "When the relatives are placed in the sentence at a distance from their antecedents or verbs or prepositions, the ear gives us no a.s.sistance. '_Who_, of all the men in the world, do you think I _saw_ to-day?' '_Who_, for the sake of numerous services, the office was given to.' In both these cases it should be _whom_. Bring the verb in the first and the preposition in the second case closer to the relative, as, _who I saw_, _to who the office was given_, and you see the error at once. But take care! '_Whom_, of all the men in the world, do you think, _was_ chosen to be sent as an amba.s.sador?' '_Whom_, for the sake of his numerous services, _had_ an office of honor bestowed upon him.' These are nominative cases, and ought to have _who_; that is to say, _who was chosen_, _who had an office_."

"Most grammarians," says Dr. Bain, in his "Higher English Grammar,"

"have laid down this rule: 'The verb _to be_ has the same case after as before it.' Macaulay censures the following as a solecism: 'It was _him_ that Horace Walpole called a man who never made a bad figure but as an author.' Thackeray similarly adverts to the same deviation from the rule: '"Is that _him_?" said the lady in _questionable grammar_.' But, notwithstanding this," continues Dr. Bain, "we certainly hear in the actual speech of all cla.s.ses of society such expressions as 'it was _me_,' 'it was _him_,' 'it was _her_,' more frequently than the prescribed form.[1] 'This shy creature, my brother says, is _me_'; 'were it _me_, I'd show him the difference.'--Clarissa Harlowe. 'It is not _me_[2] you are in love with.'--Addison. 'If there is one character more base than another, it is _him_ who,' etc.--Sydney Smith. 'If I were _him_'; 'if I had been _her_,' etc. The authority of good writers is strong on the side of objective forms. There is also the a.n.a.logy of the French language; for while 'I am here' is _je suis ici_, the answer to 'who is there?' is _moi_ (me); and _c'est moi_ (it is _me_) is the legitimate phrase--never _c'est je_ (it is I)."

But _moi_, according to all French grammarians, is very often in the nominative case. _Moi_ is in the nominative case when used in reply to "Who is there?" and also in the phrase "C'est moi," which makes "It is _I_" the correct translation of the phrase, and not "It is _me_." The French equivalent of "I! I am here," is "Moi! je suis ici." The Frenchman uses _moi_ in the nominative case when _je_ would be inharmonious. Euphony with him is a matter of more importance than grammatical correctness. Bescherelle gives many examples of _moi_ in the nominative. Here are two of them: "Mon avocat et moi sommes de cet avis.

Qui veut aller avec lui? Moi." If we use such phraseology as "It is _me_," we must do as the French do--consider _me_ as being in the nominative case, and offer _euphony_ as our reason for thus using it.

When shall we put nouns (or p.r.o.nouns) preceding verbal, or participial, nouns, as they are called by some grammarians--infinitives in _ing_, as they are called by others--in the possessive case?

"'I am surprised at _John's_ (or _his_, _your_, etc.) _refusing_ to go.'

'I am surprised at _John_ (or _him_, _you_, etc.) _refusing_ to go.' [In the latter sentence _refusing_ is a participle.] The latter construction is not so common with p.r.o.nouns as with nouns, especially with such nouns as do not readily take the possessive form. 'They prevented _him going_ forward': better, 'They prevented _his going_ forward.' 'He was dismissed without any _reason being_ a.s.signed.' 'The boy died through his _clothes being_ burned.' 'We hear little of any _connection being_ kept up between the two nations.' 'The men rowed vigorously for fear of the _tide turning_ against us.' _But most examples of the construction without the possessive form are_ OBVIOUSLY DUE TO MERE SLOVENLINESS....

'In case of _your being_ absent': here _being_ is an infinitive [verbal, or participial, noun] qualified by the possessive _your_. 'In case of _you being_ present': here _being_ would have to be construed as a participle. _The possessive construction is, in this case, the primitive and regular construction_; THE OTHER IS A MERE LAPSE. The difficulty of adhering to the possessive form occurs when the subject is not a person: 'It does not seem safe to rely on the rule of _demand_ creating supply': in strictness, '_Demand's_ creating supply.' 'A pet.i.tion was presented against the _license being_ granted.' But for the awkwardness of extending the possessive to impersonal subjects, it would be right to say, 'against the _license's being_ granted.' 'He had conducted the ball without any _complaint being_ urged against him.' The possessive would be suitable, but undesirable and unnecessary."--Professor Alexander Bain.

"Though the _ordinary_ syntax of the possessive case is sufficiently plain and easy, there is, perhaps, among all the puzzling and disputable points of grammar, nothing more difficult of decision than are some questions that occur respecting the right management of this case. The observations that have been made show that possessives before participles are seldom to be approved. The following example is manifestly inconsistent with itself; and, _in my opinion, the three possessives are all wrong_: 'The kitchen, too, now begins to give dreadful note of preparation; not from _armorers_ accomplis.h.i.+ng the knights, but from the _shopmaid's_ chopping force-meat, the _apprentice's_ cleaning knives, and the _journeyman's_ receiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting at table.' 'The daily instances of _men's_ dying around us.' Say rather, 'Of _men_ dying around us.' The leading word in sense ought not to be made the adjunct in construction."--Goold Brown.

CASUALTY. This word is often heard with the incorrect addition of a syllable, _casuality_, which is not recognized by the lexicographers.

Some writers object to the word casualty, and always use its synonym _accident_.

CELEBRITY. "A number of _celebrities_ witnessed the first representation." This word is frequently used, especially in the newspapers, as a concrete term; but it would be better to use it in its abstract sense only, and in sentences like the one above to say _distinguished persons_.

CHARACTER--REPUTATION. These two words are not synonyms, though often used as such. _Character_ means the sum of distinguis.h.i.+ng qualities.

"Actions, looks, words, steps, form the alphabet by which you may spell characters."--Lavater. _Reputation_ means the estimation in which one is held. One's reputation, then, is what is thought of one's character; consequently, one may have a good reputation and a bad character, or a good character and a bad reputation. Calumny may injure _reputation_, but not _character_. Sir Peter does not leave his _character_ behind him, but his _reputation_--his _good name_.

CHEAP. The dictionaries define this adjective as meaning, bearing a low price, or to be had at a low price; but nowadays good usage makes it mean that a thing may be had, or has been sold, at a bargain. Hence, in order to make sure of being understood, it is better to say _low-priced_, when one means low-priced, than to use the word _cheap_.

What is low-priced, as everybody knows, is often _dear_, and what is high-priced is often _cheap_. A diamond necklace might be _cheap_ at ten thousand dollars, and a pinchbeck necklace dear at ten dollars.

CHERUBIM. The Hebrew plural of _cherub_. "We are authorized," says Dr.

Campbell, "both by use and a.n.a.logy, to say either _cherubs_ and _seraphs_, according to the English idiom, or _cherubim_ and _seraphim_, according to the Oriental. The former suits better the familiar, the latter the solemn, style. As the words _cherubim_ and _seraphim_ are plural, the terms _cherubims_ and _seraphims_, as expressing the plural, are quite improper."--"Philosophy of Rhetoric."

CITIZEN. This word properly means one who has certain political rights; when, therefore, it is used, as it often is, to designate persons who may be aliens, it, to say the least, betrays a want of care in the selection of words. "Several _citizens_ were injured by the explosion."

Here some other word--_persons_, for example--should be used.

CLEVER. In this country the word _clever_ is most improperly used in the sense of good-natured, well-disposed, good-hearted. It is properly used in the sense in which we are wont most inelegantly to use the word _smart_, though it is a less colloquial term, and is of wider application. In England the phrase "a _clever_ man" is the equivalent of the French phrase, "_un homme d'esprit_." The word is properly used in the following sentences: "Every work of Archbishop Whately must be an object of interest to the admirers of _clever_ reasoning"; "Cobbett's letter ... very _clever_, but very mischievous"; "Bonaparte was certainly as _clever_ a man as ever lived."

CLIMAX. A clause, a sentence, a paragraph, or any literary composition whatsoever, is said to end with a _climax_ when, by an artistic arrangement, the more effective is made to follow the less effective in regular gradation. Any great departure from the order of ascending strength is called an _anti-climax_. Here are some examples of climax:

"Give all diligence; add to your faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, G.o.dliness; and to G.o.dliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity."

"What is every year of a wise man's life but a criticism on the past!

Those whose life is the shortest live long enough to laugh at one half of it; the boy despises the infant, the man the boy, the sage both, and the Christian all."

"What a piece of work is man! how n.o.ble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action, how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a G.o.d!"

CO. The prefix _co_ should be used only when the word to which it is joined begins with a vowel, as in _co-eval_, _co-incident_, _co-operate_, etc. _Con_ is used when the word begins with a consonant, as in _con-temporary_, _con-junction_, etc. _Co-partner_ is an exception to the rule.

COMMENCE. The Britons use or misuse this word in a manner peculiar to themselves. They say, for example, "commenced merchant," "commenced actor," "commenced politician," and so on. Dr. Hall tells us that _commence_ has been employed in the sense of "begin to be," "become,"

"set up as," by first-cla.s.s writers, for more than two centuries.

Careful speakers make small use of _commence_ in any sense; they prefer to use its Saxon equivalent, _begin_. See, also, BEGIN.

COMPARISON. When only two objects are compared, the comparative and not the superlative degree should be used; thus, "Mary is the _older_ of the two"; "John is the _stronger_ of the two"; "Brown is the _richer_ of the two, and the _richest_ man in the city"; "Which is the _more_ desirable, health or wealth?" "Which is the _most_ desirable, health, wealth, or genius?"

"Of two such lessons, why forget The _n.o.bler_ and the _manlier_ one?"

COMPLETED. This word is often incorrectly used for _finished_. That is _complete_ which lacks nothing; that is _finished_ which has had all done to it that was intended. The builder of a house may _finish_ it and yet leave it very _incomplete_.

CONDIGN. It is safe to say that most of those who use this word do not know its meaning, which is, suitable, deserved, merited, proper. "His endeavors shall not lack _condign_ praise"; i. e., his endeavors shall not lack _proper_ or their _merited_ praise. "A villain _condignly_ punished" is a villain punished _according to his deserts_. To use _condign_ in the sense of _severe_ is just as incorrect as it would be to use _deserved_ or _merited_ in the sense of _severe_.

CONFIRMED INVALID. This phrase is a convenient mode of expressing the idea it conveys, but it is difficult to defend, inasmuch as _confirmed_ means strengthened, established.

CONSEQUENCE. This word is sometimes used instead of _importance_ or _moment_; as, "They were all persons of more or less _consequence_": read, "of more or less _importance_." "It is a matter of no _consequence_": read, "of no _moment_."

CONSIDER. "This word," says Mr. Richard Grant White, in his "Words and Their Uses," "is perverted from its true meaning by most of those who use it." _Consider_ means, to meditate, to deliberate, to reflect, to revolve in the mind; and yet it is made to do service for _think_, _suppose_, and _regard_. Thus: "I _consider_ his course very unjustifiable"; "I have always _considered_ it my duty," etc.; "I _consider_ him as being the cleverest man of my acquaintance."

CONTEMPTIBLE. This word is sometimes used for _contemptuous_. An old story says that a man once said to Dr. Parr, "Sir, I have a _contemptible_ opinion of you." "That does not surprise me," returned the Doctor; "all your opinions are _contemptible_." What is worthless or weak is _contemptible_. Despicable is a word that expresses a still more intense degree of the contemptible. A traitor is a _despicable_ character, while a poltroon is only _contemptible_.

CONTINUALLY. See PERPETUALLY.

CONTINUE ON. The _on_ in this phrase is generally superfluous. "We continued on our way" is idiomatic English, and is more euphonious than the sentence would be without the particle. The meaning is, "We continued to travel _on_ our way." In such sentences, however, as "Continue _on_," "He continued to read _on_," "The fever continued _on_ for some hours," and the like, the _on_ generally serves no purpose.

CONVERSATIONIST. This word is to be preferred to _conversationalist_.

Mr. Richard Grant White says that _conversationalist_ and _agriculturalist_ are inadmissible. On the other hand, Dr. Fitzedward Hall says: "As for _conversationist_ and _conversationalist_, _agriculturist_ and _agriculturalist_, as all are alike legitimate formations, it is for convention to decide which we are to prefer."

CONVOKE--CONVENE. At one time and another there has been some discussion with regard to the correct use of these two words. According to Crabb, "There is nothing imperative on the part of those that _a.s.semble_, or _convene_, and nothing binding on those _a.s.sembled_, or _convened_: one _a.s.sembles_, or _convenes_, by invitation or request; one attends to the notice or not, at pleasure. _Convoke_, on the other hand, is _an act of authority_; it is the call of one who has the authority to give the call; it is heeded by those who feel themselves bound to attend."

Properly, then, President Arthur _convokes_, not _convenes_, the Senate.

CORPOREAL--CORPORAL. These adjectives, though regarded as synonyms, are not used indiscriminately. _Corporal_ is used in reference to the body, or animal frame, in its proper sense; _corporeal_, to the animal substance in an extended sense--opposed to spiritual. _Corporal_ punishment; _corporeal_ or _material_ form or substance.

"That to _corporeal_ substances could add Speed most spiritual."--Milton.

"What seemed _corporal_ Melted as breath into the wind."--Shakespeare.

COUPLE. In its primitive signification, this word does not mean simply two, but two that are united by some bond; such as, for example, the tie that unites the s.e.xes. It has, however, been so long used to mean two of a kind considered together, that in this sense it may be deemed permissible, though the subst.i.tution of the word _two_ for it would often materially improve the diction.

COURAGE. See BRAVERY.

CRIME--VICE--SIN. The confusion that exists in the use of these words is due largely to an imperfect understanding of their respective meanings.

_Crime_ is the violation of the law of a state; hence, as the laws of states differ, what is crime in one state may not be crime in another.