Common Mistakes in English
By "common mistakes" I do not mean the mistakes that are heard in the traditional maltreatment of English by the ignorant. I mean the mistakes made daily by people who claim to have enjoyed some education and who would feel deeply hurt if accused of not using their language correctly.
It might be expected that those whose living depends on the use of English - professional journalists and other writers, and public speakers -would be particular about their grammar. Unhappily this is not so, and practically every book, newspaper and magazine contains mistakes, while public speeches are seldom faultless. Is it surprising, then, that readers follow bad examples in the belief that anything in print, any public utterance, must be right?
Those people who are cocksure of their grammar hate being told of their mistakes, and of course anyone noticing the mistakes would be reluctant to point them out. There is a strong human instinct, from which good manners are derived, not to hurt or cause embarrassment, and there is also a strong instinct restraining the exhibition of any form of superiority in oneself.
I am afraid, therefore, that nothing can be done about the cocksure person, and it is better to suffer mistakes and keep peace than to act as mentor and risk ill-feeling. The cocksure person might not read this book, but he might be brought down to earth from his fool's paradise if he realized his mistakes by reading faultless English in his books and his newspapers. It is easier to deal with the more tolerant person who is unsure of his English, for he will seldom be too vain to ask if a construction is correct.
I shall now work through the commoner mistakes, giving actual examples where possible.
SUBJECT AND OBJECT
To summarise, I shall give examples of the confusion of subject and object with the necessary corrections:
Wrong Right
"He took Mother and I for a ride in the car "He took Mother and me for a ride in the car." "The manager met my friend and I at the station." "The manager met my friend and me at the
station." "Between you and I..." "Between you and me..." "Come and sit beside we girls." "Come and sit beside us girls."
Wrong Right
"Me and the wife went to the pictures." "My wife and I went to the pictures."
(Note: Never refer to your wife as the wife) "It's me." (I admit that this is an accepted "It is I." colloquialism.)
"Those are them." "Those are they." "Who shall I give it to?" "Whom shall I give it to?" "The person who ] saw..." "The person whom I saw..." "Whom is the next speaker?" "Who is the next speaker?" "The man who the policeman arrested..." "The man whom the policeman arrested..."
Finally, here is a gem from an estate agent's announcement:
"Mr. — presents his compliments to he (or she) seeking, south of the Park, new, architect designed, freehold houses."
You will be aware that "he (or she)" should be "him (or her)." I should also point out that there should be a hyphen between "architect" and "designed," for the two words form a compound adjective.
"WHO" AND "WHOM"
Who is subjective, whom is objective.
"Who shall I give it to?" is wrong because the question is another form of "I shall give it to whom?" or "To whom shall I give it?" The subject is I, and a preposition — in this case to — is followed by the objective.
"Whom shall I take with me?" is right. "Who shall I take with me?" is wrong. I am taking someone with me, so that / is the subject, the someone is the object, and the someone in the question is the unknown whom.
Who, as the subject, is correct in such questions as the following;
"Who goes home?"
"Who is coming with me?"
"Who did it?"
When who is used as a simple relative pronoun it is immaterial whether its governing noun or pronoun is the subject or the object, and both the following sentences are correct:
"The lady who dealt with the enquiry is away." ("The lady" is the subject.)
"I saw the man who did it." ("The man" is the object.)
We could also say, correctly: "The lady who is loved by all is away."
Yet who would be changed to whom in the following kinds of construction:
'The lady whom nothing could upset is away."
"The lady to whom you addressed your enquiry is away." "The man whom the policeman arrested..." is right because it was the policeman who did the arresting. For who to be right, the man (subject) must himself have performed an action, or virtually performed it, as in "The man who was arrested..." Here, the man's action lay in being arrested.
"WHOSE"
I do not like whose to be used for something impersonal, as in:
"At the outset of the meeting, whose agenda included a discussion on old-age pensions, the chairman gave a warning."
I prefer the following:
"At the outset of the meeting, of which the agenda" — or "the agenda of which" - "included a discussion on old-age pensions..."
I like the use of whose to be confined to persons, as in the following two examples:
"The man whose car was stolen reported the facts to the police."
"Mrs. Jones, whose hundredth birthday fell yesterday, received presents from all her grand-children and great-grandchildren."
"EVERY" AND "EACH"
The main thing to remember is that these are singular words, and it is a very common mistake to treat them as plurals.
Consider this example by a gossip-writer:
"I was most impressed by the reasonable prices and agreeable designs of everything on sale."
"Everything on sale" is singular, meaning each object, and each object had its own price and own design. The sentence should thus be: .
"I was most impressed by the reasonable price and agreeable design of everything on sale."
"There are carpets in every room." This type of sentence is often heard. Each room may have more than one carpet, but the writer probably means that there is no room without a carpet. There are two correct ways of 'ex-. pressing the meaning:
"There is a carpet in every room."
"There are carpets in all the rooms."
Each is similarly maltreated, and the following are examples of common mistakes:
Wrong Right
"The hotel issues ftee guide books to each "The hotel issues a free guide-book to each guest."
' Or "The hotel issues free guide-books to all guests."
"I foresee neat rows of tiny houses, with "I foresee neat rows of tiny houses, with a smooth lawns in each garden and prams at smooth lawn in each garden and a pram at each each front door." front door."
"BETWEEN EACH"
It is indeed strange - in fact, it is incomprehensible - that one of the
commonest mistake is also one of the most obvious. Too often we read this
kind of thing:
"Sow the plants in rows, with at least two feet between each row." 'The buttonholes should next be cut, with six inches between each." It should be clear to anyone that the preposition between cannot exist
with one singular word, and "between each" is nonsense. Correct versions
of the foregoing sentences would be:
"Sow the plants in rows, with at least two feet between adjacent rows," or
".. .with at least two feet between each pair of rows," or "Sow the plants in
rows, the rows being at least two feet apart."
"The buttonholes should next be cut, six inches apart."
CONFUSION OF SINGULAR AND PLURAL
From consideration of every and each it is convenient to pass to the confusion of singular and plural within a sentence. Here are some examples of wrong and right:
Wrong Right "You cross all the rivers by a bridge." "You cross all the rivers by bridges." , "There is a crisis in the life of all men." <If the sentence is interpreted literally, it means that production this year is seven times production last year.
This is a very common type of mistake, especially in journalism, and you must be careful about it.
"BUT, HOWEVER"
Occasionally, one comes across this kind of construction:
"A blizzard had raged all morning, our limbs were numbed and our bodies exhausted. We expected to find a roaring fire of comfort in the cabin. But when we arrived, however, and opened, the door, all we found was a cold heap of ashes in the hearth."
But and however sue similar in effect, and should not be used together. The second sentence of this passage can be expressed in either of the following two ways:
"But when we arrived, and opened the door, all we found was a cold heap of ashes...."
"When we arrived, however, and opened the door, all we found was a cold heap of ashes...."
THE MISUSE OF "THAT"
It grieves me exceedingly that a horrible practice has crept into English and is used shamelessly by many people who should know better. I refer to the use of that with an adjective, as in the following dreadful sentences:
"I had no idea the house was that small."
"As a pianist he isn't really that good."
"If the weather is that bad you had better stay at home." In spite of common acceptance, this use of that is wrong and is to be avoided. The correct forms of the above sentences are:
"I had no idea mat the house was as small as that." (The omission of "that" after "idea" is a permissible colloquialism.)
"As a pianist he isn't really as good as that."
"If the weather is as bad as that you had better stay at home."
That is often used instead of a simple $0;
"I was that happy I could have cried."
"I went to the pictures three times that week, the film was that exciting."
'That happy" and "that exciting" should be "so happy" and "so exciting."
The common expressions "that much" and "that many" should be "as much as that" and "as many as that."
"MOOT POINT"
A moot point, something to be debated, discussed and pondered over, derives its name from the Anglo-Saxon town assembly, or court of justice, which was a moot or mote, while the meeting-place was the moot hall.
Unfortunately many people confuse the word moot with mute (silent), and wrongly talk about a "mute point" instead of a "moot point."
"ALL RIGHT"
Already, almost, almighty and altogether are right, but alright is wrong. I confess that there seems to be no fair reason for this, yet those who insist on writing "alright" are branded as semi-ignorant.
If you want your written English to be acceptable, therefore, you must write "all right."
"DEPENDENT" AND "DEPENDANT"
Dependent and independent are adjectives.
"He is dependent on me."
'The Daily Reflection is independent of party, creed and sectional interests."
"Prisoner was described as of independent means."
Dependant is a noun, being someone or something dependent on someone or something else.
'As a married man and a father I have several dependants who look to me for support."
These words are often confused, the greater tendency being to use dependant for dependent.
"EFFECT" AND "AFFECT"
Effect and affect give rise to much muddled thinking. Effect can be both a noun and a verb. Here it is as a noun:
"The effect of the speech was to electrify the audience." 'Certain drugs have a soporific effect." "Independence may have the effect of arrogance." Here is effect as a verb, meaning "bring about":
"The judge said he hoped the arrangement would effect a reconciliation between the parties."
"After much heated discussion the disputants appealed to the chairman,
who recommended that a compromise be effected without delay."
"Effecting the right degree of temperature in the furnace is a matter of
great skill."
It should be noted that the verb effect is always transitive.
Affect is also a verb, and only a verb. When used transitively it means
"have an effect on."
"The only matter now affecting the issue is the legal right of the lessee to
enter the land."
"Onions do not affect my eyes as they do other people's."
' "She was visibly affected by the sad proceedings."
Affect can also be used intransitively to mean "pretend," but in this sense
it is always followed by "to," as in:
"He affects to be a wealthy man."
"She affects to be a woman of no importance."
This meaning of affect gives the noun affectation (pretence).
"SCAN"
Too many people give scan the directly opposite meaning to its real
meaning. To scan anything does not mean to glance at it hurriedly. It means
to scrutinize it thoroughly, to digest it properly, to get the full flavour or in-
terpretation of it.
Grammar is like law in that ignorance is no excuse, and there is no excuse
for misuse of scan.
There is the associated meaning of scan, of course, as applied to verse.
To scan a line of verse is to count its metrical feet, a foot being a group of
syllables on one beat. ,
Thus, Gray's line, "The lowing herd winds slowly o'er the lea," is scanned
thus:
'The low/ing herd/ winds slow/ly o'er/the lea."
I hope you will forgive this short digression, but if you are
sufficiently interested in English to read this book you should be interested
in verse. As there are five feet in this line (divided by oblique strokes), the
line is called a pentameter. Each foot is of two syllables, one short and one
long, and this kind of foot is called an iambus. The line is thus an iambic
pentameter, and although a simple form of poetic construction it has
immense capabilities. For a study of iambic pentameters you cannot do
better than read Shakespeare.
REDUNDANT PAST PARTICIPLES
Redundant past participles are rather similar to redundant conditionals.
"He would have had to have waited" contains two past participles (had
and waited) when only one is necessary. The meaning of this sentence
should be expressed thus:
"He would have had to wait."
UNATTACHED PARTICIPLES
Now we come to a class of error which is probably the most common of
all.
Always remember this: a present participle must be logically attached
to a noun or a pronoun.
"Referring to your letter of the 16th November, the horse was sold last
Monday."
If this is stricdy interpreted, the, present participle referring is attached
to the horse. But the writer does not really mean that the horse was refer-
ring to me letter of the 16th November. He means mat he himself is refer-
ring to the letter. There are several ways in which the sentence could be
made sensible, and here is one:
"Referring to your letter of the 16* November, I have to state that the
horse was sold last Monday."
"I have to state" is commercial English, but at least the sentence is now
grammatical, widi die participle referring attached to the pronoun I.
This silly kind of mistake is extremely prevalent in commercial corre-
spondence. Think, too, of the common misuse of providing, as in:
"Providing the goods are dispatched by die end of December we shall
pay in full by me end of January."
Literally, this means that tve are doing the providing, and this, of
course, is nonsense. The word here should be the past participle provided.
Here is a newspaper paragraph:
"Providing the weather is suitable, the Queen and the Duke of
Edinburgh intend to take next mondi a week's cruise in die Mediterranean."
The Queen and me Duke have enough to think about without providing
that the weather is suitable, and here, too, me word should be provided.
"ASSUMING"
We are still in our study of unattached participles, and our next target is
assuming. This kind of construction is common:
"Assuming it does not rain, die match will take place as arranged."
This means that the match will do the assuming, when actually the as-
suming is done by the organizers of the match. If the writer wants to use
the word assuming he should .write the sentence this way:
"Assuming it does not rain, the organizers will see that the match takes
place as arranged."
I should prefer, however, to call in the aid of the past participle assumed,
like mis:
"It being assumed that it does not rain" — or "will not rain" — "the match
will take place as arranged."
Here is another example:
The stage is set for a dramatic denouement of the crisis in the Middle
East by the deadline of Monday next, assuming - which is far from certain
- that a great gamble by the President of me United States comes off."
The present participle assuming is not attached to anything. And it is
difficult to see what the relative pronoun which is related to. -The writer
should have expressed this passage something -like this:
"The stage is set for a dramatic denouement of the crisis in the Middle
East by me deadline of Monday next, it being assumed that a great gamble
by the President of die United States comes off. It is, however, far from
certain if it will come off."
"JUDGING"
Many professional journalists are fond of the present participle judging
and often use it wrongly. Here is one example:
"Judging by accounts in the British Press, the opening night of The Phan-
tom of the Opera in New York seems to have been successful."
This means mat the opening night did the judging. The use of judged
would have saved the situation. . .
Here is another passage where judged should have been used instead of
judging:
"Judging by me department stores' sales, this looks like being France's
most prosperous Christmas ever."
MISCELLANEOUS EXAMPLES OF
UNATTACHED PARTICIPLES
Prevalent errors are in the use of "broadly speaking," "strictly speaking,"
"generally speaking," and all the other kinds of speaking.
"Broadly speaking, the fortunes of the catering trade depend on the
weather."
Can it be the fortunes of the catering trade which speak broadly? This
sentence would have made sense if 'speaking" had been omitted.
Then there is the other old friend which appears in the picture papers, in
respectable newspapers and on picture postcards: "Beach at Seahampton,
looking east,"
The reader or viewer is meant to assume that he is looking east. But the
literal meaning is that the beach itself is looking east — the direct opposite to
the meaning intended.
The following is from a literary article by a former editor: "Looking
back, then, two editors are outstanding...." The passage should be recon-
structed: "If we look back," or "If one looks back, then, two editors are
outstanding...."
How do you like the following confused passage?
"Having made this quite clear it can be stated, for what it is worth, that
since nationalization Bolivian tin has been sold at prices averaging a dollar
and less and has cost from a dollar and a half to two dollars to produce,
converting costs at the official exchange rate."
As it stands, the present participle having is attached to the pronoun it.
Nobody knows what it is, but whatever it is it is not the thing that has made
"this quite clear." It is hard to find anything at all to which converting
might be attached.
Here is a grammatical reconstruction:
"This having been made quite clear, it can be stated, for what it is worth,
that although, since nationalization, Bolivian tin has cost one and a half to
two dollars to produce, it has been sold at prices (costs being converted at
the official exchange rate) averaging a dollar and less."
This is a grammatical reconstruction, but it still is not very good prose. I
have had to insert several commas to divide the long sentence into logical
groups, but the effect is jerky. A much better way of writing the passage
would be thus:
"The foregoing has been made quite clear. It may be of interest that al-
though, since nationalization, Bolivian tin has cost one and a half to two
dollars to produce, its average selling price at the official exchange rate has
averaged a dollar or even less."
The present participles have now been cut out altogether.
A university professor might be expected to be aware of the pitfalls in
the use of participles, but here is an extract from a professor's foreword to a
text-book on mining engineering:
"Having practiced mining engineering for over thirty years and taught it
for five, existing text-books had long seemed unsatisfactory."
If the professor wanted to use the participle he should have used it like
this:
"Having practiced mining engineering for over thirty years and taught it
for five, I have long found existing text-books apparently unsatisfactory."
An excellent article in a scientific journal bore this title: "Exploration of
the Earth's Upper Atmosphere Using High-Altitude Rockets."
Now, it is not the exploration which was using the rockets, but the experi-
menters. The title should have been: "Exploration of the Earth's Upper At-
mosphere by the Use of High-Altitude Rockets."
UNATTACHED PAST PARTICIPLES
Most examples ot the misuse ot participles are concerned with present
participles, which usually end in -iflg. But even past participles, often ending
in -ed, can lead people astray, and I shall give two examples.
The first is from a magazine concerned with motoring:
"The picnic table is within easy reach when seated on camp stools."
Logically, this means that when the picnic-table is seated on camp-stools
it is within easy reach. This kind of thing takes us into a world of tiresome
nonsense, for the writer does not even say that he is referring to the picnick-
ers. No doubt what he means is this:
"The picnic-table is within easy reach when the picnickers are seated on
camp-stools."
But there is no need to go to this length, and the following would be
quite adequate: "The picnic-table is within easy reach of the camp-stools."
Mv second example is from the catalogue of a building exhibition;
"Strong, clean and economically priced, we have strong conviction in rec-
ommending this product."
Let this be the last. We have gone beyond amusement. A suitable recon-
struction of this horrible example would be:
"We have strong conviction in recommending this product, which is
strong, clean and cheap."
OTHER MISUSES OF THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE
There is one form of construction with the present participle which,
frankly, presents a problem. I refer to the instructional or informative type
of sentence which reads something like this:
"The machine is started by switching on the current and moving the con-
trol arm over to the extreme left.''
This is not right as it stands as the participles switching and moving are
not disciplined by anything. The sentence would be quite correct, however,
in this form:
"The operator starts the machine by switching on the current and mov-
ing the control arm over to the extreme left." Here, the participles are disci-
plined by the words the operator, which are, in fact, the subject of the sen-
tence. In the example as given, it is difficult to analyse the sentence into sub-
ject, verb and object, and, in fact, if a sentence cannot be so analysed it is
suspect.
If the example is an instruction to operators, it could just as well have
been written, quite correctly, in the imperative mood:
"Start the machine by switching on the current and moving the control
arm over to the extreme left."
Such sentences are not always instructions to operators, and the impera-
tive mood cannot always be used. One solution is to treat such awkward"
participles as nouns, like this:
'The machine is started by the switching-on of the current and the mov-
ing of the control arm over to the extreme left."
This sentence, though correct, is clumsy. Some sentences, if treated in
this way with present participles as nouns, are even worse. How, for in-
stance, could the following be corrected?
1. "A new lawn may be made either by laying turves .or by sowing seed."
2. "Cut as shown in the illustration, the center cut being made by pressing
the knife-blade down and pulling it out."
3. "There is an electronic wheel-balancing machine that enables the wheels
to be balanced without removing them from the car."
4. "Any misadjustment may be gauged by grasping the center ring firmly
with both hands and pushing it down and pulling it up along the length
of the shaft."
First, let us see the effect of treating the present participles as nouns.
1. "A new lawn may be made either by the laying of turves or by the sow-
ing of seed."
2. "Cut as shown in the illustration, the center cut being made by a press-
ing of the knife-blade down and a pulling of it out."
3. "There is an electronic wheel-balancing machine that enables the wheels
to be balanced without the removing of them from the car."
4. "Any misadjustment may be gauged by a grasping of the center ring
firmly with both hands and a pushing of it down and a pulling of it up
along the length of the shaft."
No. 1 now sounds satisfactory. Nos. 2, 3, and 4, however, are too cum-
bersome, and it would be better to rewrite the sentences. As No. 2 starts in
the imperative mood ("Cut as shown") it might as well continue in this
mood. Here are my suggestions:
2. "Cut as shown in the illustration, making the center cut by pressing the
knife-blade down and pulling it out."
3. "There is an electronic wheel-balancing machine that enables the wheels
to be balanced without their removal from the car."
4. "Any misadjustment may be gauged if the center ring is grasped firmly
with both hands and pushed down and pulled up along the length of
the shaft."
The present participle being is often maltreated, as in the following ex-
amples:
1. "The possibility of strong head winds being encountered is not pre-
cluded."
2. "The skid appears to have been precipitated by oil being sprayed on to
a rear wheel by a defective oil breather pipe."
3. "Upon it being explained to him, he agreed with the proposal."
All these examples can be easily corrected by the treatment of present
participles as nouns, in this way:'
1. "The possibility of the encountering of strong head winds is not pre-
cluded."
2. 'The skid appears to have been precipitated by the spraying of oil on to
a rear wheel by a defective oil breather pipe."
3. "Upon its being explained to him, he agreed with the proposal."
Sometimes the correct manipulation of a present participle makes the
sentence sound clumsy, as we have seen. But if you argue that ungrammati-
cal sentences like those I have quoted are justified by common usage, I can-
not agree. Common usage can occasionally be a good servant but is never a
master. If common usage is to be our only guide in grammar we leave the
way open to all kinds of slipshod writing and speech and even to illiteracy.
UNRELATED WORDS
Lastly, I come to misconstructions of sentences by the use of unrelated
words other than participles.
This is from an article on a celebrated man:
"Though shy of personal publicity, most people find him friendly and
easy to get on widi."
This means that most people are shy of personal publicity. The writer, on
the other hand, really means that the celebrated man is shy. If me writer had
read the passage carefully before sending it for publication he should have
realized that readers would be hoodwinked by the false relation of "Though
shy" with "most people." The editorial staff was dull in not noticing the
mistake, and the sentence could have been corrected simply by the insertion
of "he is" after Though."
Oddities of the Language
In English there are numerous peculiar constructions and uses of words
which cannot be classed as mistakes but which are interesting enough to'
deserve discussion. While many of these are acceptable in literate society,
some are not recommended for regular use and may, in fact, be frowned
upon.
I shall deal with some of these language oddities — as I have called them
for the purpose of this chapter - and shall start with the subject of cliches.
CLICHES
Cliche is the past participle of die French verb dicker, "to stereotype."
Thus, in English, a cliche is a word, phrase, clause or sentence that has be-
come figuratively stereotyped, or so overworked that it has ceased to be ef-
fective. Cliches are often used innocently by ingenuous people and are apt to
provoke tolerant smiles or, at the worst, impolite sniggers.
The thing to remember about any cliche is that originally it was a clever,
pungent, economical, euphonious or even witty expression. Whoever started
it, other people copied it because they liked the sound of it or because of its
handiness in saving thought and in expressing much in little.
Through constant use, however, cliches lose their originality and can even
become evidence of mental poverty' in their users. They are to be avoided as
far as possible. I say "as far as possible" because certain useful words like
"incidentally" and phrases like "as a matter of fact," which are undeniable
cliches, are so truly useful that they do not bring "the ghost of a smile" (this
is a cliche) to the face of a listener or reader. I say "as far as possible" for a
second reason — that nobody, try as he may, can avoid cliches altogether.
I give below a list of cliches, some of them old, some not so old. If any
of these expressions, or others like them, come into your mind while you
are writing or speaking, you must be cautious. In writing you have time to
hunt for ways of escape, but in speech you are liable to say the first thing
you think of.
"I couldn't care less.'
"Prior to" (before)
"Raining cats and dogs"
"A step in the right direction"
"The arm of the law"
"Common or garden"
"Wearing-apparel"
"The order of the day"
"Leaving no stone unturned"
"Making the supreme sacrifice"
"The long arm of coincidence."
"In his heart of hearts"
"Conspicuous by his absence"
"The irony of fate"
"Not wisely but too well"
"The major part of" (most of)
"I read him like a book."
"Smoking like a house on fire"
"The letter of the law"
"With monotonous regularity"
"By and large"
"Reading-matter"
"Exploring every avenue"
"Be made the recipient of" (be given).
"It stands to reason."
"Sleeping the sleep of the just"
"The cup that cheers but not inebriates"
"Leave well alone"
"The psychological moment"
"More in sorrow than anger"
"This hurts me more than it hurts you." "Nemesis overtook him."
You will be able to add many cliches to this list.
COMMERCIAL ENGLISH
"Commercial English," bristles with cliches, but these cliches are of a
particular and strange kind. A business letter in simple English shows that
the writer has cleared his mind of, or has never acquired, those lifeless col-
lections of words which may even, for all I know, be taught in commercial
schools.
"Yours to hand," for instance — this is dreadful. "The work is in hand" is
only slightly better. Then there are our old friends inst., lilt. and prox.,
which are indefensible. There is no reason at all why dates should not be
given as the 15th June or the 20'1' December. The horrible expression "even
date," for "today," is inexplicable, for it does not even have the virtue of
saving space.
"I acknowledge receipt of your letter" is ungrammatical. You receive a
letter, or you acknowledge a letter, but you cannot acknowledge receipt.
So many writers of business letters think it a sin to repeat anything that
they are prone to writing about "the same," or even "same." This quaint
practice is so unnecessary as to be comical.
"We regret" is often used where it would be more polite or more feeling
to say "We are sorry." There may be a difference between "tell' and "in-
form," but in cases where there is no difference "tell" is preferable.
"I would" or "we would" is often used instead of "I should" or "we
should." "Forward" and "dispatch" are used where "send" would be better.
"Begin" or "start" is usually better than "commence." Personally, I only use
the longer or the less simple word if the rhythm of the letter is improved by
it.
"AS TO," "AS REGARDS," "WITH REGARD TO"
"As to the children," we might read, "they are enjoying their holiday im-
mensely."
I do not know why the writer could not have written simply: "The chil-
dren are enjoying their holiday immensely." Let us suppose, however, that he
had a genuine reason; for example, he might have begun writing about the
other members of the family and wanted to make a special point of adding
something about the children."
Instead of "As to," then, he might have used "As for," "As regards,"
"With regard to," or, ungrammatically, "Regarding." "Regarding" is wrong
because it is an unattached present participle; the children are not regarding
themselves.
Anyway, the five expressions, similar in meaning, are clumsy. They are,
however, shorter than the full and more explanatory construction:
"On the subject of the children, I can report that they are enjoying their
holiday immensely."
Are the expressions acceptable? "Regarding" is not acceptable, as we
have seen. "As regards" is the most awkward, for it is difficult to find any
logical basis for it. "As to" and "As for" are better. "With regard to," in my
opinion, is the most acceptable of all.
"THE FORMER" AND "THE LATTER"
Too much use is made of "the former" and "the latter," in the mistaken
belief that it is bad English to repeat a word. It may be bad English if the
repetition can be avoided, but the use of "the former" and "the latter" is a
poor way of avoiding it.
"The two greatest men in the history of Stonechester were Emmanuel
Scamper and Benjamin Thwaites. Both were staunch councilors and noted
philanthropists, but while the former was noted also for his horse-racing
interests the latter's aversion from all kinds of gambling was particularly well
known."
When the reader comes across "the former" and "the latter" he has to
look back to see what is meant, and this is one factor against their use. In
the above passage, for instance, the reader cannot be expected to grasp im-
mediately that ^'the former" is Scamper and "the latter" Thwaites.
"The former" and "the latter" also tend to make a passage sound stilted.
I should prefer it written in mis way:
'The two greatest men in the history of Stonechester were Emmanuel
Scamper and Benjamin Thwaites. Both were staunch councilors and noted
philanthropists, but while Scamper was noted also for his horse-racing inter-
ests Thawaites's aversion from all kinds of gambling was particularly well
known."
"Aversion from," incidentally, is right. The common "aversion to" is
wrong, "to" (as I have explained elsewhere) signifying approach.
I know that everybody uses "the former" and "the latter" sometimes, but
their use should be minimized and confined as far as possible to compli-
cated items consisting of groups of words. One important thing to remem-
ber is that "the former" and "the latter" can be used only for a pair of
items.
ELLIPSIS IN COMPARISONS
Ellipsis is simply shortening by the omission of certain words which are
understood, and by "ellipsis in comparisons" I mean sentences like this:
'Temperatures today will be lower than yesterday's."
'Temperatures today will be lower than they were yesterday."
"Temperatures today will be lower than those of yesterday."
The ellipsis is generally acceptable, but I think it preferable to use the full
form if it is not too unwieldy.
SWITCHED ADJECTIVES
When we speak of a "generous gift" we do not mean that the gift is gen-
erous but that the giver is generous. The adjective generous had been
switched from one thing to another and becomes a "switched adjective."
There is no harm in this practice as long as the reader or listener under-
stands the intention of the writer or speaker. Other examples of switched
adjectives are "glad tidings," "sad news" and even "happy Christmas."
"LOST TO"
The phrase lost to is strangely used in two ways, as the following sen-
tences show:
"When Mr. X. retired from business after fifty years of hard work he felt
that the commercial world was lost to him for ever."
"When Mr. X. played in the bowls match this year he lost the champion-
ship to Mr. Y."
In each case it is Mr. X. who is the loser, but while in the first instance
the thing lost (the commercial world) is lost to himself, in the second in-
stance the thing lost (the championship) is lost to somebody else.
The general conclusion seems to be that if the thing lost is not gained by
anyone else in particular it is lost to the loser. If the thing lost is gained by
somebody it is lost to the gainer.
"AS FROM"
Two prepositions side by side are often frowned upon, but "as from" can
be a useful and legitimate phrase.
"Order of 25th January, 19—. As from 1st January, wages and salaries will
be increased by 5 per cent."
"As from" here indicates precisely that the order takes effect from a date
earlier than the date on which it is written, and I have no quarrel with any-
one who uses it in this sense. But I see no point in its use if, for example,
the effective date is after the date of the order, in which case "as" should be
omitted:
"Order of 25th January, 19—. From 1st February, wages and salaries will
be increased by 5 per cent."
If we come to another kind of writing, there is this:
"He heard a voice as from a great distance, and, waking from his dream,
saw his father beside him."
There is nothing wrong with "as from" if it is regarded as an ellipsis.
Thus in the first example it could be "as [if it is] from," and in the last ex-
ample "as [if it came] from."
LATIN ABBREVIATIONS
Etc. or & c is an. abbreviation of "etcetera," which is Latin for "and the
rest." It should have no place in ordinary prose and its use should be con-
fined to notes and jottings. If, after giving a list of items, a writer wants to
imply the existence of more, he should use some such expression as "and so
forth," "and so on," or "and others."
Other Latin, abbreviations include et al. (et alibi, "and elsewhere,").
Note the original meaning of alibi. •-
"AND/OR"
The term "and/or" has appeared for many years not only in official pub-
lications but also in more general writing. It may be convenient in certain
limited circumstances, but it is not good English.
"Instructions to Council. The presentation of Aldermen to His Grace
will be made by the Lord Mayor and/or the Sheriff."
Now, in that official instruction, where brevity and clarity are both desir-
able, I think that "and/or" is justified. There is no justification, however, for
"and/or" in the following:
'The features we look for in the ideal novel include accurate characterisa-
tion, an attractive literary style, the power of holding the reader's attention, a
reasonable degree of probability and/or a good plot skilfully woven."
The writer means that if we cannot have a reasonable degree of prob-
ability we want a good plot skillfully woven, but preferably we should have
both. He should say so, then. It will take longer, but the reader does not
expect to find telegram economy in his prose.
"LITTLE" AND "A LITTLE"
There is a distinct difference between the following two sentences:
"He had little difficulty in finding the address."
"He had a little difficulty in finding the address."
The first means that he found the address easily. The second means that
he did not find it easily. The litde word a makes all die difference, but this is
just one of the funny things about English.
"TO BUILD"
The verb "to build" means "to erect." And yet we read about various
things being built which are not built at all — things like tunnels, canals, and
underground shelters, which are dug or (if we want a longer word) exca-
vated.
If you are tempted to use the world build, therefore, stop to ask yourself
if you are doing right or wrong.
Though we have come to the end of this book, we have certainly not
exhausted the study of English. The grammar of a language is not very
flexible and differs little from generation to generation. Idioms and usage
are more flexible, and vocabulary is undergoing constant change. Ralph
Waldo Emerson truly said, " Language is a city, to the building of which
every human being has brought a stone" Words can form an engrossing
study, and I hope I have been able to stimulate your interest in them.
It might be expected that those whose living depends on the use of English - professional journalists and other writers, and public speakers -would be particular about their grammar. Unhappily this is not so, and practically every book, newspaper and magazine contains mistakes, while public speeches are seldom faultless. Is it surprising, then, that readers follow bad examples in the belief that anything in print, any public utterance, must be right?
Those people who are cocksure of their grammar hate being told of their mistakes, and of course anyone noticing the mistakes would be reluctant to point them out. There is a strong human instinct, from which good manners are derived, not to hurt or cause embarrassment, and there is also a strong instinct restraining the exhibition of any form of superiority in oneself.
I am afraid, therefore, that nothing can be done about the cocksure person, and it is better to suffer mistakes and keep peace than to act as mentor and risk ill-feeling. The cocksure person might not read this book, but he might be brought down to earth from his fool's paradise if he realized his mistakes by reading faultless English in his books and his newspapers. It is easier to deal with the more tolerant person who is unsure of his English, for he will seldom be too vain to ask if a construction is correct.
I shall now work through the commoner mistakes, giving actual examples where possible.
SUBJECT AND OBJECT
To summarise, I shall give examples of the confusion of subject and object with the necessary corrections:
Wrong Right
"He took Mother and I for a ride in the car "He took Mother and me for a ride in the car." "The manager met my friend and I at the station." "The manager met my friend and me at the
station." "Between you and I..." "Between you and me..." "Come and sit beside we girls." "Come and sit beside us girls."
Wrong Right
"Me and the wife went to the pictures." "My wife and I went to the pictures."
(Note: Never refer to your wife as the wife) "It's me." (I admit that this is an accepted "It is I." colloquialism.)
"Those are them." "Those are they." "Who shall I give it to?" "Whom shall I give it to?" "The person who ] saw..." "The person whom I saw..." "Whom is the next speaker?" "Who is the next speaker?" "The man who the policeman arrested..." "The man whom the policeman arrested..."
Finally, here is a gem from an estate agent's announcement:
"Mr. — presents his compliments to he (or she) seeking, south of the Park, new, architect designed, freehold houses."
You will be aware that "he (or she)" should be "him (or her)." I should also point out that there should be a hyphen between "architect" and "designed," for the two words form a compound adjective.
"WHO" AND "WHOM"
Who is subjective, whom is objective.
"Who shall I give it to?" is wrong because the question is another form of "I shall give it to whom?" or "To whom shall I give it?" The subject is I, and a preposition — in this case to — is followed by the objective.
"Whom shall I take with me?" is right. "Who shall I take with me?" is wrong. I am taking someone with me, so that / is the subject, the someone is the object, and the someone in the question is the unknown whom.
Who, as the subject, is correct in such questions as the following;
"Who goes home?"
"Who is coming with me?"
"Who did it?"
When who is used as a simple relative pronoun it is immaterial whether its governing noun or pronoun is the subject or the object, and both the following sentences are correct:
"The lady who dealt with the enquiry is away." ("The lady" is the subject.)
"I saw the man who did it." ("The man" is the object.)
We could also say, correctly: "The lady who is loved by all is away."
Yet who would be changed to whom in the following kinds of construction:
'The lady whom nothing could upset is away."
"The lady to whom you addressed your enquiry is away." "The man whom the policeman arrested..." is right because it was the policeman who did the arresting. For who to be right, the man (subject) must himself have performed an action, or virtually performed it, as in "The man who was arrested..." Here, the man's action lay in being arrested.
"WHOSE"
I do not like whose to be used for something impersonal, as in:
"At the outset of the meeting, whose agenda included a discussion on old-age pensions, the chairman gave a warning."
I prefer the following:
"At the outset of the meeting, of which the agenda" — or "the agenda of which" - "included a discussion on old-age pensions..."
I like the use of whose to be confined to persons, as in the following two examples:
"The man whose car was stolen reported the facts to the police."
"Mrs. Jones, whose hundredth birthday fell yesterday, received presents from all her grand-children and great-grandchildren."
"EVERY" AND "EACH"
The main thing to remember is that these are singular words, and it is a very common mistake to treat them as plurals.
Consider this example by a gossip-writer:
"I was most impressed by the reasonable prices and agreeable designs of everything on sale."
"Everything on sale" is singular, meaning each object, and each object had its own price and own design. The sentence should thus be: .
"I was most impressed by the reasonable price and agreeable design of everything on sale."
"There are carpets in every room." This type of sentence is often heard. Each room may have more than one carpet, but the writer probably means that there is no room without a carpet. There are two correct ways of 'ex-. pressing the meaning:
"There is a carpet in every room."
"There are carpets in all the rooms."
Each is similarly maltreated, and the following are examples of common mistakes:
Wrong Right
"The hotel issues ftee guide books to each "The hotel issues a free guide-book to each guest."
' Or "The hotel issues free guide-books to all guests."
"I foresee neat rows of tiny houses, with "I foresee neat rows of tiny houses, with a smooth lawns in each garden and prams at smooth lawn in each garden and a pram at each each front door." front door."
"BETWEEN EACH"
It is indeed strange - in fact, it is incomprehensible - that one of the
commonest mistake is also one of the most obvious. Too often we read this
kind of thing:
"Sow the plants in rows, with at least two feet between each row." 'The buttonholes should next be cut, with six inches between each." It should be clear to anyone that the preposition between cannot exist
with one singular word, and "between each" is nonsense. Correct versions
of the foregoing sentences would be:
"Sow the plants in rows, with at least two feet between adjacent rows," or
".. .with at least two feet between each pair of rows," or "Sow the plants in
rows, the rows being at least two feet apart."
"The buttonholes should next be cut, six inches apart."
CONFUSION OF SINGULAR AND PLURAL
From consideration of every and each it is convenient to pass to the confusion of singular and plural within a sentence. Here are some examples of wrong and right:
Wrong Right "You cross all the rivers by a bridge." "You cross all the rivers by bridges." , "There is a crisis in the life of all men." <
This is a very common type of mistake, especially in journalism, and you must be careful about it.
"BUT, HOWEVER"
Occasionally, one comes across this kind of construction:
"A blizzard had raged all morning, our limbs were numbed and our bodies exhausted. We expected to find a roaring fire of comfort in the cabin. But when we arrived, however, and opened, the door, all we found was a cold heap of ashes in the hearth."
But and however sue similar in effect, and should not be used together. The second sentence of this passage can be expressed in either of the following two ways:
"But when we arrived, and opened the door, all we found was a cold heap of ashes...."
"When we arrived, however, and opened the door, all we found was a cold heap of ashes...."
THE MISUSE OF "THAT"
It grieves me exceedingly that a horrible practice has crept into English and is used shamelessly by many people who should know better. I refer to the use of that with an adjective, as in the following dreadful sentences:
"I had no idea the house was that small."
"As a pianist he isn't really that good."
"If the weather is that bad you had better stay at home." In spite of common acceptance, this use of that is wrong and is to be avoided. The correct forms of the above sentences are:
"I had no idea mat the house was as small as that." (The omission of "that" after "idea" is a permissible colloquialism.)
"As a pianist he isn't really as good as that."
"If the weather is as bad as that you had better stay at home."
That is often used instead of a simple $0;
"I was that happy I could have cried."
"I went to the pictures three times that week, the film was that exciting."
'That happy" and "that exciting" should be "so happy" and "so exciting."
The common expressions "that much" and "that many" should be "as much as that" and "as many as that."
"MOOT POINT"
A moot point, something to be debated, discussed and pondered over, derives its name from the Anglo-Saxon town assembly, or court of justice, which was a moot or mote, while the meeting-place was the moot hall.
Unfortunately many people confuse the word moot with mute (silent), and wrongly talk about a "mute point" instead of a "moot point."
"ALL RIGHT"
Already, almost, almighty and altogether are right, but alright is wrong. I confess that there seems to be no fair reason for this, yet those who insist on writing "alright" are branded as semi-ignorant.
If you want your written English to be acceptable, therefore, you must write "all right."
"DEPENDENT" AND "DEPENDANT"
Dependent and independent are adjectives.
"He is dependent on me."
'The Daily Reflection is independent of party, creed and sectional interests."
"Prisoner was described as of independent means."
Dependant is a noun, being someone or something dependent on someone or something else.
'As a married man and a father I have several dependants who look to me for support."
These words are often confused, the greater tendency being to use dependant for dependent.
"EFFECT" AND "AFFECT"
Effect and affect give rise to much muddled thinking. Effect can be both a noun and a verb. Here it is as a noun:
"The effect of the speech was to electrify the audience." 'Certain drugs have a soporific effect." "Independence may have the effect of arrogance." Here is effect as a verb, meaning "bring about":
"The judge said he hoped the arrangement would effect a reconciliation between the parties."
"After much heated discussion the disputants appealed to the chairman,
who recommended that a compromise be effected without delay."
"Effecting the right degree of temperature in the furnace is a matter of
great skill."
It should be noted that the verb effect is always transitive.
Affect is also a verb, and only a verb. When used transitively it means
"have an effect on."
"The only matter now affecting the issue is the legal right of the lessee to
enter the land."
"Onions do not affect my eyes as they do other people's."
' "She was visibly affected by the sad proceedings."
Affect can also be used intransitively to mean "pretend," but in this sense
it is always followed by "to," as in:
"He affects to be a wealthy man."
"She affects to be a woman of no importance."
This meaning of affect gives the noun affectation (pretence).
"SCAN"
Too many people give scan the directly opposite meaning to its real
meaning. To scan anything does not mean to glance at it hurriedly. It means
to scrutinize it thoroughly, to digest it properly, to get the full flavour or in-
terpretation of it.
Grammar is like law in that ignorance is no excuse, and there is no excuse
for misuse of scan.
There is the associated meaning of scan, of course, as applied to verse.
To scan a line of verse is to count its metrical feet, a foot being a group of
syllables on one beat. ,
Thus, Gray's line, "The lowing herd winds slowly o'er the lea," is scanned
thus:
'The low/ing herd/ winds slow/ly o'er/the lea."
I hope you will forgive this short digression, but if you are
sufficiently interested in English to read this book you should be interested
in verse. As there are five feet in this line (divided by oblique strokes), the
line is called a pentameter. Each foot is of two syllables, one short and one
long, and this kind of foot is called an iambus. The line is thus an iambic
pentameter, and although a simple form of poetic construction it has
immense capabilities. For a study of iambic pentameters you cannot do
better than read Shakespeare.
REDUNDANT PAST PARTICIPLES
Redundant past participles are rather similar to redundant conditionals.
"He would have had to have waited" contains two past participles (had
and waited) when only one is necessary. The meaning of this sentence
should be expressed thus:
"He would have had to wait."
UNATTACHED PARTICIPLES
Now we come to a class of error which is probably the most common of
all.
Always remember this: a present participle must be logically attached
to a noun or a pronoun.
"Referring to your letter of the 16th November, the horse was sold last
Monday."
If this is stricdy interpreted, the, present participle referring is attached
to the horse. But the writer does not really mean that the horse was refer-
ring to me letter of the 16th November. He means mat he himself is refer-
ring to the letter. There are several ways in which the sentence could be
made sensible, and here is one:
"Referring to your letter of the 16* November, I have to state that the
horse was sold last Monday."
"I have to state" is commercial English, but at least the sentence is now
grammatical, widi die participle referring attached to the pronoun I.
This silly kind of mistake is extremely prevalent in commercial corre-
spondence. Think, too, of the common misuse of providing, as in:
"Providing the goods are dispatched by die end of December we shall
pay in full by me end of January."
Literally, this means that tve are doing the providing, and this, of
course, is nonsense. The word here should be the past participle provided.
Here is a newspaper paragraph:
"Providing the weather is suitable, the Queen and the Duke of
Edinburgh intend to take next mondi a week's cruise in die Mediterranean."
The Queen and me Duke have enough to think about without providing
that the weather is suitable, and here, too, me word should be provided.
"ASSUMING"
We are still in our study of unattached participles, and our next target is
assuming. This kind of construction is common:
"Assuming it does not rain, die match will take place as arranged."
This means that the match will do the assuming, when actually the as-
suming is done by the organizers of the match. If the writer wants to use
the word assuming he should .write the sentence this way:
"Assuming it does not rain, the organizers will see that the match takes
place as arranged."
I should prefer, however, to call in the aid of the past participle assumed,
like mis:
"It being assumed that it does not rain" — or "will not rain" — "the match
will take place as arranged."
Here is another example:
The stage is set for a dramatic denouement of the crisis in the Middle
East by the deadline of Monday next, assuming - which is far from certain
- that a great gamble by the President of me United States comes off."
The present participle assuming is not attached to anything. And it is
difficult to see what the relative pronoun which is related to. -The writer
should have expressed this passage something -like this:
"The stage is set for a dramatic denouement of the crisis in the Middle
East by me deadline of Monday next, it being assumed that a great gamble
by the President of die United States comes off. It is, however, far from
certain if it will come off."
"JUDGING"
Many professional journalists are fond of the present participle judging
and often use it wrongly. Here is one example:
"Judging by accounts in the British Press, the opening night of The Phan-
tom of the Opera in New York seems to have been successful."
This means mat the opening night did the judging. The use of judged
would have saved the situation. . .
Here is another passage where judged should have been used instead of
judging:
"Judging by me department stores' sales, this looks like being France's
most prosperous Christmas ever."
MISCELLANEOUS EXAMPLES OF
UNATTACHED PARTICIPLES
Prevalent errors are in the use of "broadly speaking," "strictly speaking,"
"generally speaking," and all the other kinds of speaking.
"Broadly speaking, the fortunes of the catering trade depend on the
weather."
Can it be the fortunes of the catering trade which speak broadly? This
sentence would have made sense if 'speaking" had been omitted.
Then there is the other old friend which appears in the picture papers, in
respectable newspapers and on picture postcards: "Beach at Seahampton,
looking east,"
The reader or viewer is meant to assume that he is looking east. But the
literal meaning is that the beach itself is looking east — the direct opposite to
the meaning intended.
The following is from a literary article by a former editor: "Looking
back, then, two editors are outstanding...." The passage should be recon-
structed: "If we look back," or "If one looks back, then, two editors are
outstanding...."
How do you like the following confused passage?
"Having made this quite clear it can be stated, for what it is worth, that
since nationalization Bolivian tin has been sold at prices averaging a dollar
and less and has cost from a dollar and a half to two dollars to produce,
converting costs at the official exchange rate."
As it stands, the present participle having is attached to the pronoun it.
Nobody knows what it is, but whatever it is it is not the thing that has made
"this quite clear." It is hard to find anything at all to which converting
might be attached.
Here is a grammatical reconstruction:
"This having been made quite clear, it can be stated, for what it is worth,
that although, since nationalization, Bolivian tin has cost one and a half to
two dollars to produce, it has been sold at prices (costs being converted at
the official exchange rate) averaging a dollar and less."
This is a grammatical reconstruction, but it still is not very good prose. I
have had to insert several commas to divide the long sentence into logical
groups, but the effect is jerky. A much better way of writing the passage
would be thus:
"The foregoing has been made quite clear. It may be of interest that al-
though, since nationalization, Bolivian tin has cost one and a half to two
dollars to produce, its average selling price at the official exchange rate has
averaged a dollar or even less."
The present participles have now been cut out altogether.
A university professor might be expected to be aware of the pitfalls in
the use of participles, but here is an extract from a professor's foreword to a
text-book on mining engineering:
"Having practiced mining engineering for over thirty years and taught it
for five, existing text-books had long seemed unsatisfactory."
If the professor wanted to use the participle he should have used it like
this:
"Having practiced mining engineering for over thirty years and taught it
for five, I have long found existing text-books apparently unsatisfactory."
An excellent article in a scientific journal bore this title: "Exploration of
the Earth's Upper Atmosphere Using High-Altitude Rockets."
Now, it is not the exploration which was using the rockets, but the experi-
menters. The title should have been: "Exploration of the Earth's Upper At-
mosphere by the Use of High-Altitude Rockets."
UNATTACHED PAST PARTICIPLES
Most examples ot the misuse ot participles are concerned with present
participles, which usually end in -iflg. But even past participles, often ending
in -ed, can lead people astray, and I shall give two examples.
The first is from a magazine concerned with motoring:
"The picnic table is within easy reach when seated on camp stools."
Logically, this means that when the picnic-table is seated on camp-stools
it is within easy reach. This kind of thing takes us into a world of tiresome
nonsense, for the writer does not even say that he is referring to the picnick-
ers. No doubt what he means is this:
"The picnic-table is within easy reach when the picnickers are seated on
camp-stools."
But there is no need to go to this length, and the following would be
quite adequate: "The picnic-table is within easy reach of the camp-stools."
Mv second example is from the catalogue of a building exhibition;
"Strong, clean and economically priced, we have strong conviction in rec-
ommending this product."
Let this be the last. We have gone beyond amusement. A suitable recon-
struction of this horrible example would be:
"We have strong conviction in recommending this product, which is
strong, clean and cheap."
OTHER MISUSES OF THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE
There is one form of construction with the present participle which,
frankly, presents a problem. I refer to the instructional or informative type
of sentence which reads something like this:
"The machine is started by switching on the current and moving the con-
trol arm over to the extreme left.''
This is not right as it stands as the participles switching and moving are
not disciplined by anything. The sentence would be quite correct, however,
in this form:
"The operator starts the machine by switching on the current and mov-
ing the control arm over to the extreme left." Here, the participles are disci-
plined by the words the operator, which are, in fact, the subject of the sen-
tence. In the example as given, it is difficult to analyse the sentence into sub-
ject, verb and object, and, in fact, if a sentence cannot be so analysed it is
suspect.
If the example is an instruction to operators, it could just as well have
been written, quite correctly, in the imperative mood:
"Start the machine by switching on the current and moving the control
arm over to the extreme left."
Such sentences are not always instructions to operators, and the impera-
tive mood cannot always be used. One solution is to treat such awkward"
participles as nouns, like this:
'The machine is started by the switching-on of the current and the mov-
ing of the control arm over to the extreme left."
This sentence, though correct, is clumsy. Some sentences, if treated in
this way with present participles as nouns, are even worse. How, for in-
stance, could the following be corrected?
1. "A new lawn may be made either by laying turves .or by sowing seed."
2. "Cut as shown in the illustration, the center cut being made by pressing
the knife-blade down and pulling it out."
3. "There is an electronic wheel-balancing machine that enables the wheels
to be balanced without removing them from the car."
4. "Any misadjustment may be gauged by grasping the center ring firmly
with both hands and pushing it down and pulling it up along the length
of the shaft."
First, let us see the effect of treating the present participles as nouns.
1. "A new lawn may be made either by the laying of turves or by the sow-
ing of seed."
2. "Cut as shown in the illustration, the center cut being made by a press-
ing of the knife-blade down and a pulling of it out."
3. "There is an electronic wheel-balancing machine that enables the wheels
to be balanced without the removing of them from the car."
4. "Any misadjustment may be gauged by a grasping of the center ring
firmly with both hands and a pushing of it down and a pulling of it up
along the length of the shaft."
No. 1 now sounds satisfactory. Nos. 2, 3, and 4, however, are too cum-
bersome, and it would be better to rewrite the sentences. As No. 2 starts in
the imperative mood ("Cut as shown") it might as well continue in this
mood. Here are my suggestions:
2. "Cut as shown in the illustration, making the center cut by pressing the
knife-blade down and pulling it out."
3. "There is an electronic wheel-balancing machine that enables the wheels
to be balanced without their removal from the car."
4. "Any misadjustment may be gauged if the center ring is grasped firmly
with both hands and pushed down and pulled up along the length of
the shaft."
The present participle being is often maltreated, as in the following ex-
amples:
1. "The possibility of strong head winds being encountered is not pre-
cluded."
2. "The skid appears to have been precipitated by oil being sprayed on to
a rear wheel by a defective oil breather pipe."
3. "Upon it being explained to him, he agreed with the proposal."
All these examples can be easily corrected by the treatment of present
participles as nouns, in this way:'
1. "The possibility of the encountering of strong head winds is not pre-
cluded."
2. 'The skid appears to have been precipitated by the spraying of oil on to
a rear wheel by a defective oil breather pipe."
3. "Upon its being explained to him, he agreed with the proposal."
Sometimes the correct manipulation of a present participle makes the
sentence sound clumsy, as we have seen. But if you argue that ungrammati-
cal sentences like those I have quoted are justified by common usage, I can-
not agree. Common usage can occasionally be a good servant but is never a
master. If common usage is to be our only guide in grammar we leave the
way open to all kinds of slipshod writing and speech and even to illiteracy.
UNRELATED WORDS
Lastly, I come to misconstructions of sentences by the use of unrelated
words other than participles.
This is from an article on a celebrated man:
"Though shy of personal publicity, most people find him friendly and
easy to get on widi."
This means that most people are shy of personal publicity. The writer, on
the other hand, really means that the celebrated man is shy. If me writer had
read the passage carefully before sending it for publication he should have
realized that readers would be hoodwinked by the false relation of "Though
shy" with "most people." The editorial staff was dull in not noticing the
mistake, and the sentence could have been corrected simply by the insertion
of "he is" after Though."
Oddities of the Language
In English there are numerous peculiar constructions and uses of words
which cannot be classed as mistakes but which are interesting enough to'
deserve discussion. While many of these are acceptable in literate society,
some are not recommended for regular use and may, in fact, be frowned
upon.
I shall deal with some of these language oddities — as I have called them
for the purpose of this chapter - and shall start with the subject of cliches.
CLICHES
Cliche is the past participle of die French verb dicker, "to stereotype."
Thus, in English, a cliche is a word, phrase, clause or sentence that has be-
come figuratively stereotyped, or so overworked that it has ceased to be ef-
fective. Cliches are often used innocently by ingenuous people and are apt to
provoke tolerant smiles or, at the worst, impolite sniggers.
The thing to remember about any cliche is that originally it was a clever,
pungent, economical, euphonious or even witty expression. Whoever started
it, other people copied it because they liked the sound of it or because of its
handiness in saving thought and in expressing much in little.
Through constant use, however, cliches lose their originality and can even
become evidence of mental poverty' in their users. They are to be avoided as
far as possible. I say "as far as possible" because certain useful words like
"incidentally" and phrases like "as a matter of fact," which are undeniable
cliches, are so truly useful that they do not bring "the ghost of a smile" (this
is a cliche) to the face of a listener or reader. I say "as far as possible" for a
second reason — that nobody, try as he may, can avoid cliches altogether.
I give below a list of cliches, some of them old, some not so old. If any
of these expressions, or others like them, come into your mind while you
are writing or speaking, you must be cautious. In writing you have time to
hunt for ways of escape, but in speech you are liable to say the first thing
you think of.
"I couldn't care less.'
"Prior to" (before)
"Raining cats and dogs"
"A step in the right direction"
"The arm of the law"
"Common or garden"
"Wearing-apparel"
"The order of the day"
"Leaving no stone unturned"
"Making the supreme sacrifice"
"The long arm of coincidence."
"In his heart of hearts"
"Conspicuous by his absence"
"The irony of fate"
"Not wisely but too well"
"The major part of" (most of)
"I read him like a book."
"Smoking like a house on fire"
"The letter of the law"
"With monotonous regularity"
"By and large"
"Reading-matter"
"Exploring every avenue"
"Be made the recipient of" (be given).
"It stands to reason."
"Sleeping the sleep of the just"
"The cup that cheers but not inebriates"
"Leave well alone"
"The psychological moment"
"More in sorrow than anger"
"This hurts me more than it hurts you." "Nemesis overtook him."
You will be able to add many cliches to this list.
COMMERCIAL ENGLISH
"Commercial English," bristles with cliches, but these cliches are of a
particular and strange kind. A business letter in simple English shows that
the writer has cleared his mind of, or has never acquired, those lifeless col-
lections of words which may even, for all I know, be taught in commercial
schools.
"Yours to hand," for instance — this is dreadful. "The work is in hand" is
only slightly better. Then there are our old friends inst., lilt. and prox.,
which are indefensible. There is no reason at all why dates should not be
given as the 15th June or the 20'1' December. The horrible expression "even
date," for "today," is inexplicable, for it does not even have the virtue of
saving space.
"I acknowledge receipt of your letter" is ungrammatical. You receive a
letter, or you acknowledge a letter, but you cannot acknowledge receipt.
So many writers of business letters think it a sin to repeat anything that
they are prone to writing about "the same," or even "same." This quaint
practice is so unnecessary as to be comical.
"We regret" is often used where it would be more polite or more feeling
to say "We are sorry." There may be a difference between "tell' and "in-
form," but in cases where there is no difference "tell" is preferable.
"I would" or "we would" is often used instead of "I should" or "we
should." "Forward" and "dispatch" are used where "send" would be better.
"Begin" or "start" is usually better than "commence." Personally, I only use
the longer or the less simple word if the rhythm of the letter is improved by
it.
"AS TO," "AS REGARDS," "WITH REGARD TO"
"As to the children," we might read, "they are enjoying their holiday im-
mensely."
I do not know why the writer could not have written simply: "The chil-
dren are enjoying their holiday immensely." Let us suppose, however, that he
had a genuine reason; for example, he might have begun writing about the
other members of the family and wanted to make a special point of adding
something about the children."
Instead of "As to," then, he might have used "As for," "As regards,"
"With regard to," or, ungrammatically, "Regarding." "Regarding" is wrong
because it is an unattached present participle; the children are not regarding
themselves.
Anyway, the five expressions, similar in meaning, are clumsy. They are,
however, shorter than the full and more explanatory construction:
"On the subject of the children, I can report that they are enjoying their
holiday immensely."
Are the expressions acceptable? "Regarding" is not acceptable, as we
have seen. "As regards" is the most awkward, for it is difficult to find any
logical basis for it. "As to" and "As for" are better. "With regard to," in my
opinion, is the most acceptable of all.
"THE FORMER" AND "THE LATTER"
Too much use is made of "the former" and "the latter," in the mistaken
belief that it is bad English to repeat a word. It may be bad English if the
repetition can be avoided, but the use of "the former" and "the latter" is a
poor way of avoiding it.
"The two greatest men in the history of Stonechester were Emmanuel
Scamper and Benjamin Thwaites. Both were staunch councilors and noted
philanthropists, but while the former was noted also for his horse-racing
interests the latter's aversion from all kinds of gambling was particularly well
known."
When the reader comes across "the former" and "the latter" he has to
look back to see what is meant, and this is one factor against their use. In
the above passage, for instance, the reader cannot be expected to grasp im-
mediately that ^'the former" is Scamper and "the latter" Thwaites.
"The former" and "the latter" also tend to make a passage sound stilted.
I should prefer it written in mis way:
'The two greatest men in the history of Stonechester were Emmanuel
Scamper and Benjamin Thwaites. Both were staunch councilors and noted
philanthropists, but while Scamper was noted also for his horse-racing inter-
ests Thawaites's aversion from all kinds of gambling was particularly well
known."
"Aversion from," incidentally, is right. The common "aversion to" is
wrong, "to" (as I have explained elsewhere) signifying approach.
I know that everybody uses "the former" and "the latter" sometimes, but
their use should be minimized and confined as far as possible to compli-
cated items consisting of groups of words. One important thing to remem-
ber is that "the former" and "the latter" can be used only for a pair of
items.
ELLIPSIS IN COMPARISONS
Ellipsis is simply shortening by the omission of certain words which are
understood, and by "ellipsis in comparisons" I mean sentences like this:
'Temperatures today will be lower than yesterday's."
'Temperatures today will be lower than they were yesterday."
"Temperatures today will be lower than those of yesterday."
The ellipsis is generally acceptable, but I think it preferable to use the full
form if it is not too unwieldy.
SWITCHED ADJECTIVES
When we speak of a "generous gift" we do not mean that the gift is gen-
erous but that the giver is generous. The adjective generous had been
switched from one thing to another and becomes a "switched adjective."
There is no harm in this practice as long as the reader or listener under-
stands the intention of the writer or speaker. Other examples of switched
adjectives are "glad tidings," "sad news" and even "happy Christmas."
"LOST TO"
The phrase lost to is strangely used in two ways, as the following sen-
tences show:
"When Mr. X. retired from business after fifty years of hard work he felt
that the commercial world was lost to him for ever."
"When Mr. X. played in the bowls match this year he lost the champion-
ship to Mr. Y."
In each case it is Mr. X. who is the loser, but while in the first instance
the thing lost (the commercial world) is lost to himself, in the second in-
stance the thing lost (the championship) is lost to somebody else.
The general conclusion seems to be that if the thing lost is not gained by
anyone else in particular it is lost to the loser. If the thing lost is gained by
somebody it is lost to the gainer.
"AS FROM"
Two prepositions side by side are often frowned upon, but "as from" can
be a useful and legitimate phrase.
"Order of 25th January, 19—. As from 1st January, wages and salaries will
be increased by 5 per cent."
"As from" here indicates precisely that the order takes effect from a date
earlier than the date on which it is written, and I have no quarrel with any-
one who uses it in this sense. But I see no point in its use if, for example,
the effective date is after the date of the order, in which case "as" should be
omitted:
"Order of 25th January, 19—. From 1st February, wages and salaries will
be increased by 5 per cent."
If we come to another kind of writing, there is this:
"He heard a voice as from a great distance, and, waking from his dream,
saw his father beside him."
There is nothing wrong with "as from" if it is regarded as an ellipsis.
Thus in the first example it could be "as [if it is] from," and in the last ex-
ample "as [if it came] from."
LATIN ABBREVIATIONS
Etc. or & c is an. abbreviation of "etcetera," which is Latin for "and the
rest." It should have no place in ordinary prose and its use should be con-
fined to notes and jottings. If, after giving a list of items, a writer wants to
imply the existence of more, he should use some such expression as "and so
forth," "and so on," or "and others."
Other Latin, abbreviations include et al. (et alibi, "and elsewhere,").
Note the original meaning of alibi. •-
"AND/OR"
The term "and/or" has appeared for many years not only in official pub-
lications but also in more general writing. It may be convenient in certain
limited circumstances, but it is not good English.
"Instructions to Council. The presentation of Aldermen to His Grace
will be made by the Lord Mayor and/or the Sheriff."
Now, in that official instruction, where brevity and clarity are both desir-
able, I think that "and/or" is justified. There is no justification, however, for
"and/or" in the following:
'The features we look for in the ideal novel include accurate characterisa-
tion, an attractive literary style, the power of holding the reader's attention, a
reasonable degree of probability and/or a good plot skilfully woven."
The writer means that if we cannot have a reasonable degree of prob-
ability we want a good plot skillfully woven, but preferably we should have
both. He should say so, then. It will take longer, but the reader does not
expect to find telegram economy in his prose.
"LITTLE" AND "A LITTLE"
There is a distinct difference between the following two sentences:
"He had little difficulty in finding the address."
"He had a little difficulty in finding the address."
The first means that he found the address easily. The second means that
he did not find it easily. The litde word a makes all die difference, but this is
just one of the funny things about English.
"TO BUILD"
The verb "to build" means "to erect." And yet we read about various
things being built which are not built at all — things like tunnels, canals, and
underground shelters, which are dug or (if we want a longer word) exca-
vated.
If you are tempted to use the world build, therefore, stop to ask yourself
if you are doing right or wrong.
Though we have come to the end of this book, we have certainly not
exhausted the study of English. The grammar of a language is not very
flexible and differs little from generation to generation. Idioms and usage
are more flexible, and vocabulary is undergoing constant change. Ralph
Waldo Emerson truly said, " Language is a city, to the building of which
every human being has brought a stone" Words can form an engrossing
study, and I hope I have been able to stimulate your interest in them.
Comments
Post a Comment