How to Speak and Write Correctly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HEADING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBSCRIPTION

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

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

Formal expressions of Subscription are:

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

Such elaborate endings as

are condemned as savoring too much of affectation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but when the husband is dead the signature should be—

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

ADDRESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES

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

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

Don't seal a note delivered by a friend.

Don't write a note on a postal card.

Here are a few common forms:—

FORMAL INVITATIONS

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

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

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

Mr. Reynolds makes reply:—

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

Mr. Saintsbury's reply:

NOTES OF INTRODUCTION

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

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

1. Fill the glass (full).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32. Where is the fire (at)?

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

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

35. (For) why did he postpone it?

36. Because (why) he could not attend.

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

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

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

40. I looked in (at) the window.

41. I passed (by) the house.

42. He (always) came every Sunday.

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

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

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

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

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS OF STANDARD AUTHORS

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

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

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

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

Here are a few other pronominal errors from leading authors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Let thou and I the battle try"—Anon.

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

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

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

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

Even in the Bible we find the relative wrongly translated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are a few authors' slips:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Distinguishing here should be replaced by to distinguish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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