Lady. To use the term lady, whether in the singular or in the plural, simply to designate the sex, is in the worst possible taste. There is a kind of pin-feather gentility which seems to have a settled aversion to using the terms man and woman. Gentlemen and ladies establish their claims to being called such by their bearing, and not by arrogating to themselves, even indirectly, the titles. In England, the title lady is properly correlative to lord; but there, as in this country, it is used as a term of complaisance, and is appropriately applied to women whose lives are exemplary, and who have received that school and home education which enables them to appear to advantage in the better circles of society. Such expressions as "She is a fine lady, a clever lady, a well-dressed lady, a good lady, a modest lady, a charitable lady, an amiable lady, a handsome lady, a fascinating lady," and the like, are studiously avoided by persons of refinement. Ladies say, "we women, the women of America, women's apparel," and so on; vulgar women talk about "us ladies, the ladies of America, ladies' apparel," and so on. If a woman of culture and refinement—in short, a lady—is compelled from any cause soever to work in a store, she is quite content to be called a sales-woman; not so, however, with your young woman who, being in a store, is in a better position than ever before. She, Heaven bless her! boils with indignation if she is not denominated a sales-lady. Lady is often the proper term to use, and then it would be very improper to use any other; but it is very certain that the terms lady and gentleman are least used by those persons who are most worthy of being designated by them. With a nice discrimination worthy of special notice, one of our daily papers recently said: "Miss Jennie Halstead, daughter of the proprietor of the 'Cincinnati Commercial,' is one of the most brilliant young women in Ohio."

In a late number of the "London Queen" was the following: "The terms ladies and gentlemen become in themselves vulgarisms when misapplied, and the improper application of the wrong term at the wrong time makes all the difference in the world to ears polite. Thus, calling a man a gentleman when he should be called a man, or speaking of a man as a man when he should be spoken of as a gentleman; or alluding to a lady as a woman when she should be alluded to as a lady, or speaking of a woman as a lady when she should properly be termed a woman. Tact and a sense of the fitness of things decide these points, there being no fixed rule to go upon to determine when a man is a man or when he is a gentleman; and, although he is far oftener termed the one than the other, he does not thereby lose his attributes of a gentleman. In common parlance, a man is always a man to a man, and never a gentleman; to a woman, he is occasionally a man and occasionally a gentleman; but a man would far oftener term a woman a woman than he would term her a lady. When a man makes use of an adjective in speaking of a lady, he almost invariably calls her a woman. Thus, he would say, 'I met a rather agreeable woman at dinner last night'; but he would not say, 'I met an agreeable lady'; but he might say, 'A lady, a friend of mine, told me,' etc., when he would not say, 'A woman, a friend of mine, told me,' etc. Again, a man would say, 'Which of the ladies did you take in to dinner?' He would certainly not say, 'Which of the women,' etc.

"Speaking of people en masse, it would be to belong to a very advanced school to refer to them in conversation as 'men and women,' while it would be all but vulgar to style them 'ladies and gentlemen,' the compromise between the two being to speak of them as 'ladies and men.' Thus a lady would say, 'I have asked two or three ladies and several men'; she would not say, 'I have asked several men and women'; neither would she say, 'I have asked several ladies and gentlemen.' And, speaking of numbers, it would be very usual to say, 'There were a great many ladies, and but very few men present,' or, 'The ladies were in the majority, so few men being present.' Again, a lady would not say, 'I expect two or three men,' but she would say, 'I expect two or three gentlemen.' When people are on ceremony with each other [one another], they might, perhaps, in speaking of a man, call him a gentleman; but, otherwise, it would be more usual to speak of him as a man. Ladies, when speaking of each other [one another], usually employ the term woman in preference to that of lady. Thus they would say, 'She is a very good-natured woman,' 'What sort of a woman is she?' the term lady being entirely out of place under such circumstances. Again, the term young lady gives place as far as possible to the term girl, although it greatly depends upon the amount of intimacy existing as to which term is employed."

Language. A note in Worcester's Dictionary says: "Language is a very general term, and is not strictly confined to utterance by words, as it is also expressed by the countenance, by the eyes, and by signs. Tongue refers especially to an original language; as, 'the Hebrew tongue.' The modern languages are derived from the original tongues." If this be correct, then he who speaks French, German, English, Spanish, and Italian, may properly say that he speaks five languages, but only one tongue.

Lay—Lie. Errors are frequent in the use of these two irregular verbs. Lay is often used for lie, and lie is sometimes used for lay. This confusion in their use is due in some measure, doubtless, to the circumstance that lay appears in both verbs, it being the imperfect tense of to lie. We say, "A mason lays bricks," "A ship lies at anchor," etc. "I must lie down"; "I must lay myself down"; "I must lay this book on the table"; "He lies on the grass"; "He lays his plans well"; "He lay on the grass"; "He laid it away"; "He has lain in bed long enough"; "He has laid up some money," "in a stock," "down the law"; "He is laying out the grounds"; "Ships lie at the wharf"; "Hens lay eggs"; "The ship lay at anchor"; "The hen laid an egg." It will be seen that lay always expresses transitive action, and that lie expresses rest.

—Written on the bedchamber door of Charles II, by the Earl of Rochester.

Learn. This verb was long ago used as a synonym of teach, but in this sense it is now obsolete. To teach is to give instruction; to learn is to take instruction. "I will learn, if you will teach me." See Teach.

Leave. There are grammarians who insist that this verb should not be used without an object, as, for example, it is used in such sentences as, "When do you leave?" "I leave to-morrow." The object of the verb—home, town, or whatever it may be—is, of course, understood; but this, say these gentlemen, is not permissible. On this point opinions will, I think, differ; they will, however, not differ with regard to the vulgarity of using leave in the sense of let; thus, "Leave me be"; "Leave it alone"; "Leave her be—don't bother her"; "Leave me see it."

Lend. See Loan.

Lengthy. This word is of comparatively recent origin, and, though it is said to be an Americanism, it is a good deal used in England. The most careful writers, however, both here and elsewhere, much prefer the word long: "a long discussion," "a long discourse," etc.

Leniency. Mr. Gould calls this word and lenience "two philological abortions." Lenity is undoubtedly the proper word to use, though both Webster and Worcester do recognize leniency and lenience.

Less. This word is much used instead of fewer. Less relates to quantity; fewer to number. Instead of, "There were not less than twenty persons present," we should say, "There were not fewer than twenty persons present."

Lesser. This form of the comparative of little is accounted a corruption of less. It may, however, be used instead of less with propriety in verse, and also, in some cases, in prose. We may say, for example, "Of two evils choose the less," or "the lesser." The latter form, in sentences like this, is the more euphonious.

Liable. Richard Grant White, in inveighing against the misuse of this word, cites the example of a member from a rural district, who called out to a man whom he met in the village, where he was in the habit of making little purchases: "I say, mister, kin yer tell me whar I'd be li'ble to find some beans?" See, also, Apt.

Lie. See Lay.

Like—As. Both these words express similarity; like (adjective) comparing things, as (adverb) comparing action, existence, or quality. Like is followed by an object only, and does not admit of a verb in the same construction. As must be followed by a verb expressed or understood. We say, "He looks like his brother," or "He looks as his brother looks." "Do as I do," not "like I do." "You must speak as James does," not "like James does." "He died as he had lived, like a dog." "It is as blue as indigo"; i. e., "as indigo is."

Like, To. See Love.

Likely. See Apt.

Lit. This form of the past participle of the verb to light is now obsolete. "Have you lighted the fire?" "The gas is lighted." Het for heated is a similar, but much greater, vulgarism.

Loan—Lend. There are those who contend that there is no such verb as to loan, although it has been found in our literature for more than three hundred years. Whether there is properly such a verb or not, it is quite certain that it is only those having a vulgar penchant for big words who will prefer it to its synonym lend. Better far to say "Lend me your umbrella" than "Loan me your umbrella."

Locate—Settle. The use of the verb to locate in the sense of to settle is said to be an Americanism. Although the dictionaries recognize to locate as a neuter verb, as such it is marked "rarely used," and, in the sense of to settle, it is among the vulgarisms that careful speakers and writers are studious to avoid. A man settles, not locates, in Nebraska. "Where do you intend to settle?" not locate. See, also, Settle.

Loggerheads. "In the mean time France is at loggerheads internally."—"New York Herald," April 29, 1881. Loggerheads internally?!

Looks beautifully. It is sometimes interesting to note the difference between vulgar bad grammar and genteel bad grammar, or, more properly, between non-painstaking and painstaking bad grammar. The former uses, for example, adjectives instead of adverbs; the latter uses adverbs instead of adjectives. The former says, "This bonnet is trimmed shocking"; the latter says, "This bonnet looks shockingly." In the first sentence the epithet qualifies the verb is trimmed, and consequently should have its adverbial form—shockingly; in the second sentence the epithet qualifies the appearance—a noun—of the bonnet, and consequently should have its adjectival form—shocking. The second sentence means to say, "This bonnet presents a shocking appearance." The bonnet certainly does not really look; it is looked at, and to the looker its appearance is shocking. So we say, in like manner, of a person, that he or she looks sweet, or charming, or beautiful, or handsome, or horrid, or graceful, or timid, and so on, always using an adjective. "Miss Coghlan, as Lady Teazle, looked charmingly." The grammar of the "New York Herald" would not have been any more incorrect if it had said that Miss Coghlan looked gladly, or sadly, or madly, or delightedly, or pleasedly. A person may look sick or sickly, but in both cases the qualifying word is an adjective. The verbs to smell, to feel, to sound, and to appear are also found in sentences in which the qualifying word must be an adjective and not an adverb. We say, for example, "The rose smells sweet"; "The butter smells good, or bad, or fresh"; "I feel glad, or sad, or bad, or despondent, or annoyed, or nervous"; "This construction sounds harsh"; "How delightful the country appears!"

On the other hand, to look, to feel, to smell, to sound, and to appear are found in sentences where the qualifying word must be an adverb; thus, "He feels his loss keenly"; "The king looked graciously on her"; "I smell it faintly." We might also say, "He feels sad [adjective], because he feels his loss keenly" (adverb); "He appears well" (adverb).

The expression, "She seemed confusedly, or timidly," is not a whit more incorrect than "She looked beautifully, or charmingly." See Adjectives.

Love—Like. Men who are at all careful in the selection of language to express their thoughts, and have not an undue leaning toward the superlative, love few things: their wives, their sweethearts, their kinsmen, truth, justice, and their country. Women, on the contrary, as a rule, love a multitude of things, and, among their loves, the thing they perhaps love most is—taffy.

Luggage—Baggage. The former of these words is generally used in England, the latter in America.

Lunch. This word, when used as a substantive, may at the best be accounted an inelegant abbreviation of luncheon. The dictionaries barely recognize it. The proper phraseology to use is, "Have you lunched?" or, "Have you had your luncheon?" or, better, "Have you had luncheon?" as we may in most cases presuppose that the person addressed would hardly take anybody's else luncheon.

Luxurious—Luxuriant. The line is drawn much more sharply between these two words now than it was formerly. Luxurious was once used, to some extent at least, in the sense of rank growth, but now all careful writers and speakers use it in the sense of indulging or delighting in luxury. We talk of a luxurious table, a luxurious liver, luxurious ease, luxurious freedom. Luxuriant, on the other hand, is restricted to the sense of rank, or excessive, growth or production; thus, luxuriant weeds, luxuriant foliage or branches, luxuriant growth.

Mad. Professor Richard A. Proctor, in a recent number of "The Gentleman's Magazine," says: "The word mad in America seems nearly always to mean angry. For mad, as we use the word, Americans say crazy. Herein they have manifestly impaired the language." Have they?

"And being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities."—Acts xxvi, II.

Make a visit. The phrase "make a visit," according to Dr. Hall, whatever it once was, is no longer English.

Male. See Female.

Marry. There has been some discussion, at one time and another, with regard to the use of this word. Is John Jones married to Sally Brown or with Sally Brown, or are they married to each other? Inasmuch as the woman loses her name in that of the man to whom she is wedded, and becomes a member of his family, not he of hers—inasmuch as, with few exceptions, it is her life that is merged in his—it would seem that, properly, Sally Brown is married to John Jones, and that this would be the proper way to make the announcement of their having been wedded, and not John Jones to Sally Brown.

There is also a difference of opinion as to whether the active or the passive form is preferable in referring to a person's wedded state. In speaking definitely of the act of marriage, the passive form is necessarily used with reference to either spouse. "John Jones was married to Sally Brown on Dec. 1, 1881"; not, "John Jones married Sally Brown" on such a date, for (unless they were Quakers) some third person married him to her and her to him. But, in speaking indefinitely of the fact of marriage, the active form is a matter of course. "Whom did John Jones marry?" "He married Sally Brown." "John Jones, when he had sown his wild oats, married [married himself, as the French say] and settled down." Got married is a vulgarism.

May. In the sense of can, may, in a negative clause, has become obsolete. "Though we may say a horse, we may not say a ox." The first may here is permissible; not so, however, the second, which should be can.

Meat. At table, we ask for and offer beef, mutton, veal, steak, turkey, duck, etc., and do not ask for nor offer meat, which, to say the least, is inelegant. "Will you have [not, take] another piece of beef [not, of the beef]?" not, "Will you have another piece of meat?"

Memorandum. The plural is memoranda, except when the singular means a book; then the plural is memorandums.

Mere. This word is not unfrequently misplaced, and sometimes, as in the following sentence, in consequence of being misplaced, it is changed to an adverb: "It is true of men as of God, that words merely meet with no response." What the writer evidently intended to say is, that mere words meet with no response.

Metaphor. An implied comparison is called a metaphor; it is a more terse form of expression than the simile. Take, for example, this sentence from Spenser's "Philosophy of Style": "As, in passing through the crystal, beams of white light are decomposed into the colors of the rainbow; so, in traversing the soul of the poet, the colorless rays of truth are transformed into brightly-tinted poetry." Expressed in metaphors, this becomes: "The white light of truth, in traversing the many-sided, transparent soul of the poet, is refracted into iris-hued poetry."

Worcester's definition of a metaphor is: "A figure of speech founded on the resemblance which one object is supposed to bear, in some respect, to another, or a figure by which a word is transferred from a subject to which it properly belongs to another, in such a manner that a comparison is implied, though not formally expressed; a comparison or simile comprised in a word; as, 'Thy word is a lamp to my feet.'" A metaphor differs from a simile in being expressed without any sign of comparison; thus, "the silver moon" is a metaphor; "the moon is bright as silver" is a simile. Examples:

"Censure is the tax a man pays to the public for being eminent."

Metonymy. The rhetorical figure that puts the effect for the cause, the cause for the effect, the container for the thing contained, the sign, or symbol, for the thing signified, or the instrument for the agent, is called metonymy.

"One very common species of metonymy is, when the badge is put for the office. Thus we say the miter for the priesthood; the crown for royalty; for military occupation we say the sword; and for the literary professions, those especially of theology, law, and physic, the common expression is the gown."—Campbell.

Dr. Quackenbos, in his "Course of Composition and Rhetoric," says: "Metonymy is the exchange of names between things related. It is founded, not on resemblance, but on the relation of, 1. Cause and effect; as,'They have Moses and the prophets,' i. e., their writings; 'Gray hairs should be respected,' i. e., old age. 2. Progenitor and posterity; as, 'Hear, O Israel!' i. e., descendants of Israel. 3. Subject and attribute; as, 'Youth and beauty shall be laid in dust,' i. e., the young and beautiful. 4. Place and inhabitant; as, 'What land is so barbarous as to allow this injustice?' i. e., what people. 5. Container and thing contained; as, 'Our ships next opened fire,' i. e., our sailors. 6. Sign and thing signified; as, 'The scepter shall not depart from Judah,' i. e., kingly power. 7. Material and thing made of it; as, 'His steel gleamed on high,' i. e., his sword."

"Petitions having proved unsuccessful, it was determined to approach the throne more boldly."

Midst, The. See In our midst.

Mind—Capricious. "Lord Salisbury's mind is capricious."—"Tribune," April 3, 1881. See Equanimity of Mind.

Misplaced Clauses. In writing and speaking, it is as important to give each clause its proper place as it is to place the words properly. The following are a few instances of misplaced clauses and adjuncts: "All these circumstances brought close to us a state of things which we never thought to have witnessed [to witness] in peaceful England. In the sister island, indeed, we had read of such horrors, but now they were brought home to our very household hearth."—Swift. Better: "We had read, indeed, of such horrors occurring in the sister island," etc.

"The savage people in many places in America, except the government of families, have no government at all, and live at this day in that savage manner as I have said before."—Hobbes. Better: "The savage people ... in America have no government at all, except the government of families," etc.

"I shall have a comedy for you, in a season or two at farthest, that I believe will be worth your acceptance."—Goldsmith. Bettered: "In a season or two at farthest, I shall have a comedy for you that I believe will be worth your acceptance."

Among the following examples of the wrong placing of words and clauses, there are some that are as amusing as they are instructive: "This orthography is regarded as normal in England." What the writer intended was, "in England as normal"—a very different thought. "The Normal School is a commodious building capable of accommodating three hundred students four stories high." "Housekeeper.—A highly respectable middle-aged Person who has been filling the above Situation with a gentleman for upwards of eleven years and who is now deceased is anxious to meet a similar one." "To Piano-Forte Makers.—A lady keeping a first-class school requiring a good piano, is desirous of receiving a daughter of the above in exchange for the same." "The Moor, seizing a bolster boiling over with rage and jealousy, smothers her." "The Dying Zouave the most wonderful mechanical representation ever seen of the last breath of life being shot in the breast and life's blood leaving the wound." "Mr. T—— presents his compliments to Mr. H——, and I have got a hat that is not his, and, if he have a hat that is not yours, no doubt they are the expectant ones." See Only.

Misplaced Words. "Of all the faults to be found in writing," says Cobbett, "this is one of the most common, and perhaps it leads to the greatest number of misconceptions. All the words may be the proper words to be used upon the occasion, and yet, by a misplacing of a part of them, the meaning may be wholly destroyed; and even made to be the contrary of what it ought to be."

"I asked the question with no other intention than to set the gentleman free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which, however uneasy, he could not then escape, by a kind introduction of the only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with propriety."—Dr. Johnson.

"This," says Cobbett, "is a very bad sentence altogether. 'However uneasy' applies to assembly and not to gentleman. Only observe how easily this might have been avoided. 'From which he, however uneasy, could not then escape.' After this we have, 'he could not then escape, by a kind introduction.' We know what is meant; but the Doctor, with all his commas, leaves the sentence confused. Let us see whether we can not make it clear. 'I asked the question with no other intention than, by a kind introduction of the only subject on which I believed him to be able to speak with propriety, to set the gentleman free from the necessity of silence, and to give him an opportunity of mingling on equal terms with a polite assembly from which he, however uneasy, could not then escape.'"

"Reason is the glory of human nature, and one of the chief eminences whereby we are raised above our fellow-creatures, the brutes, in this lower world."—Doctor Watts' "Logic."

"I have before showed an error," Cobbett remarks, "in the first sentence of Doctor Watts' work. This is the second sentence. The words in this lower world are not words misplaced only; they are wholly unnecessary, and they do great harm; for they do these two things: first, they imply that there are brutes in the higher world; and, second, they excite a doubt whether we are raised above those brutes.

"I might greatly extend the number of my extracts from these authors; but here, I trust, are enough. I had noted down about two hundred errors in Dr. Johnson's 'Lives of the Poets'; but, afterward perceiving that he had revised and corrected 'The Rambler' with extraordinary care, I chose to make my extracts from that work rather than from the 'Lives of the Poets.'"

The position of the adverb should be as near as possible to the word it qualifies. Sometimes we place it before the auxiliary and sometimes after it, according to the thought we wish to express. The difference between "The fish should properly be broiled" and "The fish should be properly broiled" is apparent at a glance. "The colon may be properly used in the following cases": should be, "may properly be used." "This mode of expression rather suits a familiar than a grave style": should be, "suits a familiar rather than a grave style." "It is a frequent error in the writings even of some good authors": should be, "in the writings of even some good authors." "Both the circumstances of contingency and futurity are necessary": should be, "The circumstances of contingency and futurity are both necessary." "He has made charges ... which he has failed utterly to sustain."—"New York Tribune." Here it is uncertain at first sight which verb the adverb is intended to qualify; but the nature of the case makes it probable that the writer meant "has utterly failed to sustain."

Mistaken. "If I am not mistaken, you are in the wrong": say, "If I mistake not." "I tell you, you are mistaken." Here mistaken means, "You are wrong; you do not understand"; but it might be taken to mean, "I mistake you." For "you are mistaken," say, "you mistake." If, as Horace and Professor Davidson aver, usage in language makes right, then the grammarians ought long ago to have invented some theory upon which the locution you are mistaken could be defended. Until they do invent such a theory, it will be better to say you mistake, he mistakes, and so on; or you are, or he is—as the case may be—in error.

More perfect. Such expressions as, "the more perfect of the two," "the most perfect thing of the kind I have ever seen," "the most complete cooking-stove ever invented," and the like, can not be defended logically, as nothing can be more perfect than perfection, or more complete than completeness. Still such phrases are, and probably will continue to be, used by good writers.

Most. "Everybody abuses this word," says Mr. Gould in his "Good English"; and then, in another paragraph, he adds: "If a man would cross out most wherever he can find it in any book in the English language, he would in almost every instance improve the style of the book." That this statement may appear within bounds, he gives many examples from good authors, some of which are the following: "a most profound silence"; "a most just idea"; "a most complete orator"; "this was most extraordinary"; "an object of most perfect esteem"; "a most extensive erudition"; "he gave it most liberally away"; "it is, most assuredly, not because I value his services least"; "would most seriously affect us"; "that such a system must most widely and most powerfully," etc.; "it is most effectually nailed to the counter"; "it is most undeniable that," etc.

This word is much, and very erroneously, used for almost. "He comes here most every day." The user of such a sentence as this means to say that he comes nearly every day, but he really says, if he says anything, that he comes more every day than he does every night. In such sentences almost, and not most, is the word to use.

Mutual. This word is much misused in the phrase "our mutual friend." Macaulay says: "Mutual friend is a low vulgarism for common friend." Mutual properly relates to two persons, and implies reciprocity of sentiment—sentiment, be it what it may, received and returned. Thus, we say properly, "John and James have a mutual affection, or a mutual aversion," i. e., they like or dislike each other; or, "John and James are mutually dependent," i. e., they are dependent on each other. In using the word mutual, care should be taken not to add the words for each other or on each other, the thought conveyed by these words being already expressed in the word mutual. "Dependent on each other" is the exact equivalent of "mutually dependent"; hence, saying that John and James are mutually dependent on each other is as redundant in form as it would be to say that the editors of "The Great Vilifier" are the biggest, greatest mud-slingers in America.

Myself. This form of the personal pronoun is properly used in the nominative case only where increased emphasis is aimed at.

"I will do it myself," "I saw it myself." It is, therefore, incorrect to say, "Mrs. Brown and myself were both very much pleased."

Name. This word is sometimes improperly used for mention; thus, "I never named the matter to any one": should be, "I never mentioned the matter to any one."

Neighborhood. See Vicinity.

Neither. See Either.

Neither—Nor. "He would neither give wine, nor oil, nor money."—Thackeray. The conjunction should be placed before the excluded object; "neither give" implies neither some other verb, a meaning not intended. Rearrange thus, taking all the common parts of the contracted sentences together: "He would give neither wine, nor oil, nor money." So, "She can neither help her beauty, nor her courage, nor her cruelty" (Thackeray), should be, "She can help neither," etc. "He had neither time to intercept nor to stop her" (Scott), should be, "He had time neither to intercept," etc. "Some neither can for wits nor critics pass" (Pope), should be, "Some can neither for wits nor critics pass."

Never. Grammarians differ with regard to the correctness of using never in such sentences as, "He is in error, though never so wise," "Charm he never so wisely." In sentences like these, to say the least, it is better, in common with the great majority of writers, to use ever.

New. This adjective is often misplaced. "He has a new suit of clothes and a new pair of gloves." It is not the suit and the pair that are new, but the clothes and the gloves.

Nice. Archdeacon Hare remarks of the use, or rather misuse, of this word: "That stupid vulgarism by which we use the word nice to denote almost every mode of approbation, for almost every variety of quality, and, from sheer poverty of thought, or fear of saying anything definite, wrap up everything indiscriminately in this characterless domino, speaking at the same breath of a nice cheese-cake, a nice tragedy, a nice sermon, a nice day, a nice country, as if a universal deluge of niaiserie—for nice seems originally to have been only niais—had whelmed the whole island." Nice is as good a word as any other in its place, but its place is not everywhere. We talk very properly about a nice distinction, a nice discrimination, a nice calculation, a nice point, and about a person's being nice, and over-nice, and the like; but we certainly ought not to talk about "Othello's" being a nice tragedy, about Salvini's being a nice actor, or New York bay's being a nice harbor.[23]

Nicely. The very quintessence of popinjay vulgarity is reached when nicely is made to do service for well, in this wise: "How do you do?" "Nicely." "How are you?" "Nicely."

No. This word of negation is responded to by nor in sentences like this: "Let your meaning be obscure, and no grace of diction nor any music of well-turned sentences will make amends."

"Whether he is there or no." Supply the ellipsis, and we have, "Whether he is there or no there." Clearly, the word to use in sentences like this is not no, but not. And yet our best writers sometimes inadvertently use no with whether. Example: "But perhaps some people are quite indifferent whether or no it is said," etc.—Richard Grant White, in "Words and Their Uses," p. 84. Supply the ellipsis, and we have, "said or no said." In a little book entitled "Live and Learn," I find, "No less than fifty persons were there; No fewer," etc. In correcting one mistake, the writer himself makes one. It should be, "Not fewer," etc. If we ask, "There were fifty persons there, were there or were there not?" the reply clearly would be, "There were not fewer than fifty." "There was no one of them who would not have been proud," etc., should be, "There was not one of them."

Not. The correlative of not, when it stands in the first member of a sentence, is nor or neither. "Not for thy ivory nor thy gold will I unbind thy chain." "I will not do it, neither shall you."

The wrong placing of not often gives rise to an imperfect negation; thus, "John and James were not there," means that John and James were not there in company. It does not exclude the presence of one of them. The negative should precede in this case: "Neither John nor James was there." "Our company was not present" (as a company, but some of us might have been), should be, "No member of our company was present."

Not—but only. "Errors frequently arise in the use of not—but only, to understand which we must attend to the force of the whole expression. 'He did not pretend to extirpate French music, but only to cultivate and civilize it.' Here the not is obviously misplaced. 'He pretended, or professed, not to extirpate.'"—Bain.

Notorious. Though this word can not be properly used in any but a bad sense, we sometimes see it used instead of noted, which may be used in either a good or a bad sense. Notorious characters are always persons to be shunned, whereas noted characters may or may not be persons to be shunned.

"This is the tax a man must pay for his virtues—they hold up a torch to his vices and render those frailties notorious in him which would pass without observation in another."—Lacon.

Novice. See Amateur.

Number. It is not an uncommon thing for a pronoun in the plural number to be used in connection with an antecedent in the singular. At present, the following notice may be seen in some of our Broadway omnibuses: "Fifty dollars reward for the conviction of any person caught collecting or keeping fares given to them to deposit in the box." Should be, to him. "A person may be very near-sighted if they can not recognize an acquaintance ten feet off." Should be, if he.

The verb to be is often used in the singular instead of in the plural; thus, "There is several reasons why it would be better": say, are. "How many is there?" say, are. "There is four": say, are. "Was there many?" say, were. "No matter how many there was": say, were.

A verb should agree in number with its subject, and not with its predicate. We say, for example, "Death is the wages of sin," and "The wages of sin are death."

"When singular nouns connected by and are preceded by each, every, or no, the verb must be singular." We say, for example, "Each boy and each girl studies." "Every leaf, and every twig, and every drop of water teems with life." "No book and no paper was arranged."

Each being singular, a pronoun or verb to agree with it must also be singular; thus, "Let them depend each on his own exertions"; "Each city has its peculiar privileges"; "Everybody has a right to look after his own interest."

Errors are often the result of not repeating the verb; thus, "Its significance is as varied as the passions": correctly, "as are the passions." "The words are as incapable of analysis as the thing signified": correctly, "as is the thing signified."

Observe. The dictionaries authorize the use of this word as a synonym of say and remark; as, for example, "What did you observe?" for "What did you say, or remark?" In this sense, however, it is better to leave observe to the exclusive use of those who delight in being fine.

O'clock. "It is a quarter to ten o'clock." What does this statement mean, literally? We understand by it that it lacks a quarter of ten, i. e., of being ten; but it does not really mean that. Inasmuch as to means toward, it really means a quarter after nine. We should say, then, a quarter of, which means, literally, a quarter out of ten.

Of all others. "The vice of covetousness, of all others, enters deepest into the soul." This sentence says that covetousness is one of the other vices. A thing can not be another thing, nor can it be one of a number of other things. The sentence should be, "Of all the vices, covetousness enters deepest into the soul"; or, "The vice of covetousness, of all the vices, enters," etc.; or, "The vice of covetousness, above all others, enters," etc.

Of any. This phrase is often used when of all is meant; thus, "This is the largest of any I have seen." Should be, "the largest of all," etc.

Off of. In such sentences as, "Give me a yard off of this piece of calico," either the off or the of is vulgarly superfluous. The sentence would be correct with either one, but not with both of them. "The apples fell off of the tree": read, "fell off the tree."

Often. This adverb is properly compared by changing its termination: often, oftener, oftenest. Why some writers use more and most to compare it, it is not easy to see; this mode of comparing it is certainly not euphonious.

Oh—O. It is only the most careful writers who use these two interjections with proper discrimination. The distinction between them is said to be modern. Oh is simply an exclamation, and should always be followed by some mark of punctuation, usually by an exclamation point. "Oh! you are come at last." "Oh, help him, you sweet heavens!" "Oh, woe is me!" "Oh! I die, Horatio." O, in addition to being an exclamation, denotes a calling to or adjuration; thus, "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth!" "O grave, where is thy victory?" "O heavenly powers, restore him!" "O shame! where is thy blush?"

Older—Elder. "He is the older man of the two, and the oldest in the neighborhood." "He is the elder of the two sons, and the eldest of the family." "The elder son is heir to the estate; he is older than his brother by ten years."

One. Certain pronouns of demonstrative signification are called indefinite because they refer to no particular subject. This is one of them. If we were putting a supposition by way of argument or illustration, we might say, "Suppose I were to lose my way in a wood"; or, "Suppose you were to lose your way in a wood"; or, "Suppose one were to lose one's way in a wood." All these forms are used, but, as a rule, the last is to be preferred. The first verges on egotism, and the second makes free with another's person, whereas the third is indifferent. "If one's honesty were impeached, what should one do?" is more courtly than to take either one's self or the person addressed for the example.

One should be followed by one, and not by he. "The better acquainted one is with any kind of rhetorical trick, the less liable he is to be misled by it." Should be, "the less liable one is to be misled by it."

In the phrase, "any of the little ones," one is the numeral employed in the manner of a pronoun, by indicating something that has gone before, or, perhaps, has to come after. "I like peaches, but I must have a ripe one, or ripe ones."

Professor Bain says, in his "Composition Grammar":

"This pronoun continually lands writers in difficulties. English idiom requires that, when the pronoun has to be again referred to, it should be used itself a second time. The correct usage is shown by Pope: 'One may be ashamed to consume half one's days in bringing sense and rhyme together.' It would be against idiom to say 'half his days.'

"Still, the repetition of the pronoun is often felt to be heavy, and writers have recourse to various substitutions. Even an ear accustomed to the idiom can scarcely accept with unmixed pleasure this instance from Browning: