Tautology. Among the things to be avoided in writing is tautology, which is the repeating of the same thought, whether in the same or in different words.

Tautophony. "A regard for harmony requires us, in the progress of a sentence, to avoid repeating a sound by employing the same word more than once, or using, in contiguous words, similar combinations of letters. This fault is known as tautology."—Dr. G. P. Quackenbos, "Advanced Course of Composition and Rhetoric," p. 300. Dr. Quackenbos is in error. The repetition of the same sense is tautology, and the repetition of the same sound, or, as Dr. Quackenbos has it, "the repeating of a sound by employing the same word more than once, or by using in contiguous words similar combinations of letters," is tautophony.

Teach. To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; as, "Teach me how to do it"; "Teach me to swim"; "He taught me to write." The uncultured often misuse learn for teach. See Learn.

Tense. The errors made in the use of the tenses are manifold. The one most frequently made by persons of culture—the one that everybody makes would, perhaps, be nearer the fact—is that of using the imperfect instead of the perfect tense; thus, "I never saw it played but once": say, have seen. "He was the largest man I ever saw": say, have seen. "I never in my life had such trouble": say, have had. Another frequent error, the making of which is not confined to the unschooled, is that of using two verbs in a past tense when only one should be in that time; thus, "I intended to have gone": say, to go. "It was my intention to have come": say, to come. "I expected to have found you here": say, to find. "I was very desirous to have gone": say, to go. "He was better than I expected to have found him": say, to find.

Among other common errors are the following: "I seen him when he done it": say, "I saw him when he did it." "I should have went home": say, gone. "If he had went": say, gone. "I wish you had went": say, gone. "He has went out": say, gone. "I come to town this morning": say, came. "He come to me for advice": say, came. "It begun very late": say, began. "It had already began": say, begun. "The following toasts were drank": say, drunk. "His text was that God was love": say, is love. Another error is made in such sentences as these: "If I had have known": say, had known. "If he had have come as he promised": say, had come. "If you had have told me": say, had told.

Testimony. See Evidence.

Than. Than and as implying comparison have the same case after as before them. "He owes more than me": read, than I—i. e., more than I owe. "John is not so old as her": read, as she—i. e., as she is. We should say, then, "He is stronger than she," "She is older than he," "You are richer than I," etc. But it does not always happen that the nominative case comes after than or as. "I love you more than him," "I give you more than him," "I love you as well as him"; that is to say, "I love you more than I love him," "I give you more than I give him," "I love you as well as I love him." Take away him and put he in all these cases, and the grammar is just as good, but the meaning is quite different. "I love you as well as him," means that I love you as well as I love him; but, "I love you as well as he," means that I love you as well as he loves you.

Than whom. Cobbett, in his "Grammar of the English Language," says: "There is an erroneous way of employing whom, which I must point out to your particular attention, because it is so often seen in very good writers, and because it is very deceiving. 'The Duke of Argyll, than whom no man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell, than whom no man was better skilled in artifice.' A hundred such phrases might be collected from Hume, Blackstone, and even from Drs. Blair and Johnson. Yet they are bad grammar. In all such cases, who should be made use of: for it is nominative and not objective. 'No man was more hearty in the cause than he was'; 'No man was better skilled in artifice than he was.'[36] It is a very common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore presumably corrupt; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: 'Pope, than whom few men had more vanity.' The Doctor did not say, 'Myself, than whom few men have been found more base, having, in my dictionary, described a pensioner as a slave of state, and having afterward myself become a pensioner.'

"I differ in this matter from Bishop Lowth, who says that 'The relative who, having reference to no verb or preposition understood, but only to its antecedent, when it follows than, is always in the objective case; even though the pronoun, if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative.' And then he gives an instance from Milton. 'Beelzebub, than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.' It is curious enough that this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical! Our poor unfortunate it is so placed as to make it a matter of doubt whether the Bishop meant it to relate to who or to its antecedent. However, we know its meaning; but, though he says that who, when it follows than, is always in the objective case, he gives us no reason for this departure from a clear general principle; unless we are to regard as a reason the example of Milton, who has committed many hundreds, if not thousands, of grammatical errors, many of which the Bishop himself has pointed out. There is a sort of side-wind attempt at reason in the words, 'having reference to no verb or preposition understood.' I do not see the reason, even if this could be; but it appears to me impossible that a noun or pronoun can exist in a grammatical state without having reference to some verb or preposition, either expressed or understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, none sat higher, except Satan.' And when, in order to avoid the repetition of the word Beelzebub, the relative becomes necessary, the full construction must be, 'no devil sat higher than who sat, except Satan'; and not, 'no devil sat higher than whom sat.'[37] The supposition that there can be a noun or pronoun which has reference to no verb and no preposition, is certainly a mistake."

Of this, Dr. Fitzedward Hall remarks, in his "Recent Exemplifications of False Philology": "That any one but Cobbett would abide this as English is highly improbable; and how the expression—a quite classical one—which he discards can be justified grammatically, except by calling its than a preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and pleasure."

Thanks. There are many persons who think it in questionable taste to use thanks for thank you.

That. The best writers often appear to grope after a separate employment for the several relatives.

"'That,' the neuter of the definite article, was early in use as a neuter relative. All the other oldest relatives gradually dropt away, and 'that' came to be applied also to plural antecedents, and to masculines and feminines. When 'as,' 'which,' and 'who' came forward to share the work of 'that,' there seems to have arisen not a little uncertainty about the relatives, and we find curious double forms: 'whom that,' 'which that,' 'which as,' etc. Gower has, 'Venus whose priest that I am'; Chaucer writes—'This Abbot which that was an holy man,' 'his love the which that he oweth.' By the Elizabethan period, these double forms have disappeared, and all the relatives are used singly without hesitation. From then till now, 'that' has been struggling with 'who' and 'which' to regain superior favor, with varying success. 'Who' is used for persons, 'which' for things, in both numbers; so is 'that'; and the only opportunity of a special application of 'that' lies in the important distinction between coördination and restriction. Now, as 'who' and 'which' are most commonly preferred for coördination, it would be a clear gain to confine them to this sense, and to reserve 'that' for the restrictive application alone. This arrangement, then, would fall in with the most general use of 'that,' especially beyond the limits of formal composition.

"The use of 'that' solely as restrictive, with 'who' and 'which' solely as coördinating, also avoids ambiguities that often attend the indiscriminate use of 'who' and 'which' for coördinate and for restrictive clauses. Thus, when we say, 'his conduct surprised his English friends, who had not known him long,' we may mean either that his English friends generally were surprised (the relative being, in that case, coördinating), or that only a portion of them—namely, the particular portion that had not known him long—were surprised. In this last case the relative is meant to define or explain the antecedent, and the doubt would be removed by writing thus: 'his English friends that had not known him long.' So in the following sentence there is a similar ambiguity in the use of 'which': 'the next winter which you will spend in town will give you opportunities of making a more prudent choice.' This may mean, either 'you will spend next winter in town' ('which' being coördinating), or 'the next of the winters when you are to live in town,' let that come when it may. In the former case, 'which' is the proper relative; in the latter case, the meaning is restrictive or defining, and would be best brought out by 'that': 'the next winter that you will spend in town.'

"A further consideration in favor of employing 'that' for explicative clauses is the unpleasant effect arising from the too frequent repetition of 'who' and 'which.' Grammarians often recommend 'that' as a means of varying the style; but this end ought to be sought in subservience to the still greater end of perspicuity.

"The following examples will serve further to illustrate the distinction between that, on the one hand, and who and which, on the other:

"'In general, Mr. Burchell was fondest of the company of children, whom he used to call harmless little men.' 'Whom' is here idiomatically used, being the equivalent of 'and them he used to call,' etc.

Here, also, 'whom' is equal to 'and him.'

"In the following instance the relative is restrictive or defining, and 'that' would be preferable: 'the conclusion of the "Iliad" is like the exit of a great man out of company whom he has entertained magnificently.' Compare another of Addison's sentences: 'a man of polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures that the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'

"Both relatives are introduced discriminatingly in this passage:—'She had learned that from Mrs. Wood, who had heard it from her husband, who had heard it at the public-house from the landlord, who had been let into the secret by the boy that carried the beer to some of the prisoners.'

"The following sentences are ambiguous under the modern system of using 'who' for both purposes:—'I met the boatman who took me across the ferry.' If 'who' is the proper relative here, the meaning is, 'I met the boatman, and he took me across,' it being supposed that the boatman is known and definite. But if there be several boatmen, and I wish to indicate one in particular by the circumstance that he had taken me across the ferry, I should use 'that.' 'The youngest boy who has learned to dance is James.' This means either 'the youngest boy is James, and he has learned to dance,' or, 'of the boys, the youngest that has learned to dance is James.' This last sense is restrictive, and 'that' should be used.

"Turning now to 'which,' we may have a series of parallel examples. 'The court, which gives currency to manners, should be exemplary': here the meaning is 'the court should be exemplary, for the court gives currency to manners.' 'Which' is the idiomatic relative in this case. 'The cat, which you despise so much, is a very useful animal.' The relative here also is coördinating, and not restrictive. If it were intended to point out one individual cat specially despised by the person addressed, 'that' would convey the sense. 'A theory which does not tend to the improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.' The meaning is restrictive; 'a theory that does not tend.' The following sentence is one of many from Goldsmith that give 'that' instead of 'which':—'Age, that lessens the enjoyment of life, increases our desire of living.' Thackeray also was fond of this usage. But it is not very common.

"'Their faith tended to make them improvident; but a wise instinct taught them that if there was one thing which ought not to be left to fate, or to the precepts of a deceased prophet, it was the artillery'; a case where 'that' is the proper relative.

"'All words, which are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, and should be 'all words that are signs of complex ideas.'

"'In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges is to direct juries by analogy to the Statute of Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights which have for many years been relinquished': say instead, 'incorporeal rights that have for many years,' and the sense is clear.

"It is necessary for the proper understanding of 'which' to advert to its peculiar function of referring to a whole clause as the antecedent: 'William ran along the top of the wall, which alarmed his mother very much.' The antecedent is obviously not the noun 'wall,' but the fact expressed by the entire clause—'William ran,' etc. 'He by no means wants sense, which only serves to aggravate his former folly'; namely, (not 'sense,' but) the circumstance 'that he does not want sense.' 'He is neither over-exalted by prosperity, nor too much depressed by misfortune; which you must allow marks a great mind.' 'We have done many things which we ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought not to have done many things'; that is, 'we ought to have done few things.' 'That' would give the exact sense intended: 'we have done many things that we ought not to have done.' 'He began to look after his affairs himself, which was the way to make them prosper.'

"We must next allude to the cases where the relative is governed by a preposition. We can use a preposition before 'who' and 'which,' but when the relative is 'that,' the preposition must be thrown to the end of the clause. Owing to an imperfect appreciation of the genius of our language, offense was taken at this usage by some of our leading writers at the beginning of last century, and to this circumstance we must refer the disuse of 'that' as the relative of restriction.[38]

"'It is curious that the only circumstance connected with Scott, and related by Lockhart, of which I was a witness, is incorrectly stated in the "Life of Sir Walter."'—Leslie's 'Memoirs.' The relative should be restrictive: 'that I was a witness of.'

"'There are many words which are adjectives which have nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns to which they are put.'—Cobbett. Better: 'there are many words that are adjectives that have nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns (that) they are put to.'

"'Other objects, of which we have not occasion to speak so frequently, we do not designate by a name of their own.' This, if amended, would be: 'other objects that we have not occasion to speak of so frequently, we do not,' etc.

"'Sorrow for the dead is the only sorrow from which we refuse to be divorced': 'the only sorrow (that) we refuse to be divorced from.'

"'Why, there is not a single sentence in this play that I do not know the meaning of.'—Addison.

"'Originality is a thing we constantly clamor for, and constantly quarrel with.'—Carlyle.

"'A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous, than Luther's would have shrunk back from the dangers which he braved and surmounted': 'that he braved'; 'the dangers braved and surmounted by him.'

"'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of those faults from which civilized men who settle among an uncivilized people are rarely free.'—Macaulay. 'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of the faults that (such faults as) civilized men that settle (settling, or settled) among an uncivilized people are rarely free from.'

"'Prejudices are notions or opinions which the mind entertains without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and which are assented to without examination.'—Berkeley. The 'which' in both cases should be 'that,' but the relative may be entirely dispensed with by participial conversion: 'prejudices are notions or opinions entertained by the mind without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and assented to without examination.'

"The too frequent repetition of 'who' and 'which' may be avoided by resolving them into the conjunction and personal or other pronoun: 'In such circumstances, the utmost that Bosquet could be expected to do was to hold his ground, (which) and this he did.'"—Bain's "Higher English Grammar."

This word is sometimes vulgarly used for so; thus, "I was that nervous I forgot everything"; "I was that frightened I could hardly stand."

The. Bungling writers sometimes write sheer nonsense, or say something very different from what they have in their minds, by the simple omission of the definite article; thus, "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, Latin and Greek is disclosed in almost every sentence framed." According to this, there is such a thing as a French, Latin and Greek tongue. Professor Townsend meant to say: "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, the Latin, and the Greek," etc.

Then. The use of this word as an adjective is condemned in very emphatic terms by some of our grammarians, and yet this use of it has the sanction of such eminent writers as Addison, Johnson, Whately, and Sir J. Hawkins. Johnson says, "In his then situation," which, if brevity be really the soul of wit, certainly has much more soul in it than "In the situation he then occupied." However, it is doubtful whether then, as an adjective, will ever again find favor with careful writers.

Thence. See Whence.

Think for. We not unfrequently hear a superfluous for tacked to a sentence; thus, "You will find that he knows more about the affair than you think for."

Those kind. "Those kind of apples are best": read, "That kind of apples is best." It is truly remarkable that many persons who can justly lay claim to the possession of considerable culture use this barbarous combination. It would be just as correct to say, "Those flock of geese," or "Those drove of cattle," as to say, "Those sort or kind of people."

Those who. This phrase, applied in a restrictive sense, is the modern substitute for the ancient idiom they that, an idiom in accordance with the true meaning of that.

"'They that told me the story said'; 'Blessed are they that mourn'; 'and Simon and they that were with him'; 'I love them that love me, and they that seek me early shall find me'; 'they that are whole have no need of a physician'; 'how sweet is the rest of them that labor!' 'I can not tell who to compare them to so fitly as to them that pick pockets in the presence of the judge'; 'they that enter into the state of marriage cast a die of the greatest contingency' (J. Taylor).

if expressed according to the old idiom would be, 'the man hath—that walketh.'

"'That' and 'those,' as demonstrative adjectives, refer backward, and are not therefore well suited for the forward reference implied in making use of 'that which' and 'those who' as restrictive relatives. It is also very cumbrous to say 'that case to which you allude' for 'the case (that) you allude to.'

"Take now the following: 'The Duke of Wellington is not one of those who interfere with matters over which he has no control': 'the Duke is not one of them that interfere in matters that they have no control over (matters that they can not control, beyond their control, out of their province).' If 'them that' sounds too antiquated, we may adopt as a convenient compromise, 'the Duke is not one of those that'; or, 'the Duke is not one to interfere in matters out of his province'; 'the duke is not one that interferes with what he has no control over.'"—Bain.

Threadbare Quotations. Among the things that are in bad taste in speaking and writing, the use of threadbare quotations and expressions is in the front rank. Some of these usés et cassés old-timers are the following: "Their name is legion"; "hosts of friends"; "the upper ten"; "Variety is the spice of life"; "Distance lends enchantment to the view"; "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever"; "the light fantastic toe"; "own the soft impeachment"; "fair women and brave men"; "revelry by night"; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

To. It is a well-established rule of grammar that to, the sign of the infinitive mood, should not be used for the infinitive itself: thus, "He has not done it, nor is he likely to." It should be, "nor is he likely to do it."

We often find to, when the sign of the infinitive, separated by an adverb from the verb to which it belongs. Professor A. P. Peabody says that no standard English writer makes this mistake, and that, so far as he knows, it occurs frequently with but one respectable American writer.

Very often to is used instead of at; thus, "I have been to the theatre, to church, to my uncle's, to a concert," and so on. In all these cases, the preposition to use is clearly at, and not to. See, also, And.

To the Fore. An old idiomatic phrase, now freely used again.

Tongue. "Much tongue and much judgment seldom go together."—L'Estrange. See Language.

Toward. Those who profess to know about such things say that etymology furnishes no pretext for the adding of s to ward in such words as backward, forward, toward, upward, onward, downward, afterward, heavenward, earthward, and the like.

Transferred Epithet. This is the shifting of a qualifying word from its proper subject to some allied subject. Examples:

"He plods his weary way." "Hence to your idle bed!" By this figure the diction is rendered more terse and vigorous; it is much used in verse. For the sake of conciseness, it is used in prose in such phrases as the lunatic asylum, the criminal court, the condemned cell, the blind asylum, the cholera hospital, the foundling asylum, and the like.

"There be some who, with everything to make them happy, plod their discontented and melancholy way through life, less grateful than the dog that licks the hand that feeds it."

Transpire. This is one of the most frequently misused words in the language. Its primary meaning is to evaporate insensibly through the pores, but in this sense it is not used; in this sense we use its twin sister perspire. Transpire is now properly used in the sense of to escape from secrecy, to become known, to leak out; and improperly used in the sense of to occur, to happen, to come to pass, and to elapse. The word is correctly used thus: "You will not let a word concerning the matter transpire"; "It transpires [leaks out] that S. & B. control the enterprise"; "Soon after the funeral it transpired [became known] that the dead woman was alive"; "It has transpired [leaked out] that the movement originated with John Blank"; "No report of the proceedings was allowed to transpire"; "It has not yet transpired who the candidate is to be." The word is incorrectly used thus: "The Mexican war transpired in 1847"; "The drill will transpire under shelter"; "The accident transpired one day last week"; "Years will transpire before it will be finished"; "More than a century transpired before it was revisited by civilized man."

Trifling Minutiæ. The meaning of trifles and of minutiæ is so nearly the same that no one probably ever uses the phrase trifling minutiæ except from thoughtlessness.

Trustworthy. See Reliable.

Try. This word is often improperly used for make. We make experiments, not try them, which is as incorrect as it would be to say, try the attempt, or the trial.

Ugly. In England, this word is restricted to meaning ill-favored; with us it is often used—and not without authority—in the sense of ill-tempered, vicious, unmanageable.

Unbeknown. This word is no longer used except by the unschooled.

Underhanded. This word, though found in the dictionaries, is a vulgarism, and as such is to be avoided. The proper word is underhand. An underhand, not an underhanded, proceeding.

Universal—All. "He is universally esteemed by all who know him." If he is universally esteemed, he must be esteemed by all who know him; and, if he is esteemed by all who know him, he must be universally esteemed.

The primary meaning of the adjective utter is outer, on the outside; but it is no longer used in this sense. It is now used in the sense of complete, total, perfect, mere, entire; but he who uses it indiscriminately as a synonym of these words will frequently utter utter nonsense—i. e., he will utter that which is without the pale of sense. For example, we can not say utter concord, but we can say utter discord—i. e., without the pale of concord.

Valuable. The following sentence, which recently appeared in one of the more fastidious of our morning papers, is offered as an example of extreme slipshodness in the use of language: "Sea captains are among the most valuable contributors to the Park aviary." What the writer probably meant to say is, "Sea captains are among those whose contributions to the Park aviary are the most valuable."

Vast. This word is often met with in forcible-feeble diction, where it is used instead of great or large to qualify such words as number, majority, multitude, and the like. Big words and expletives should be used only where they are really needed; where they are not really needed, they go wide of the object aimed at. The sportsman that hunts small game with buck-shot comes home empty-handed.

Veracity. The loss would be a small one if we were to lose this word and its derivatives. Truth and its derivatives would supply all our needs. In the phrase so often heard, "A man of truth and veracity," veracity is entirely superfluous, it having precisely the same meaning as truth. The phrase, "A big, large man," is equally good diction.

Verbiage. An unnecessary profusion of words is called verbiage: verbosity, wordiness.

"I thought what I read of it verbiage."—Johnson.

Sometimes a better name than verbiage for wordiness would be emptiness. Witness: "Clearness may be developed and cultivated in three ways, (a) By constantly practicing in heart and life the thoughts and ways of honesty and frankness." The first sentence evidently means, "Clearness may be attained in three ways"; but what the second sentence means—if it means anything—is more than I can tell. Professor L. T. Townsend, "Art of Speech," vol. i, p. 130, adds: "This may be regarded as the surest path to greater transparency of style." The transparency of Dr. Townsend's style is peculiar. Also, p. 144, we find: "The laws and rules1 thus far laid down2 furnish ample foundation for3 the general statement that an easy and natural4 expression, an exact verbal incarnation of one's thinking,5 together with the power of using appropriate figures, and of making nice discriminations between approximate synonyms,6 each being an important factor in correct style, are attained in two ways.7 (1) Through moral8 and mental discipline. (2) Through continuous and intimate9 acquaintance with such authors as best exemplify those attainments."10

1. Would not laws cover the whole ground? 2. En passant I would remark that Dr. Townsend did not make these laws, though he so intimates. 3. I suggest the word justify in place of these four. 4. What is natural is easy; easy, therefore, is superfluous. 5. If this means anything, it does not mean more than the adjective clear would express, if properly used in the sentence. 6. Approximate synonyms!! Who ever heard of any antagonistic or even of dissimilar synonyms? 7. The transparency of this sentence is not unlike the transparency of corrugated glass. 8. What has morality to do with correctness? 9. An intimate acquaintance would suffice for most people. 10. Those attainments! What are they? Dr. Townsend's corrugated style makes it hard to tell.

This paragraph is so badly conceived throughout that it is well-nigh impossible to make head, middle, or tail of it; still, if I am at all successful in guessing what Professor Townsend wanted to say in it, then—when shorn of its redundancy and high-flown emptiness—it will read somewhat like this: "The laws thus far presented justify the general statement that a clear and natural mode of expression—together with that art of using appropriate figures and that ability properly to discriminate between synonyms which are necessary to correctness—is attained in two ways. (1) By mental discipline. (2) By the study of our best authors."

The following sentence is from a leading magazine: "If we begin a system of interference, regulating men's gains, bolstering here, in order to strengthen this interest, [and] repressing elsewhere [there], in order to equalize wealth, we shall do an [a] immense deal of mischief, and without bringing about a more agreeable condition of things than now [we] shall simply discourage enterprise, repress industry, and check material growth in all directions." Read without the eighteen words in italics and with the four inclosed.

"Nothing disgusts sooner than the empty pomp of language."

Vice. See Crime.

Vicinity. This word is sometimes incorrectly used without the possessive pronoun; thus, "Washington and vicinity," instead of "Washington and its vicinity." The primary meaning of vicinity is nearness, proximity. In many of the cases in which vicinity is used, neighborhood would be the better word, though vicinity is perhaps preferable where it is a question of mere locality.

Vocation—Avocation. These words are frequently confounded. A man's vocation is his profession, his calling, his business; and his avocations are the things that occupy him incidentally. Mademoiselle Bernhardt's vocation is acting; her avocations are painting and sculpture. "The tracing of resemblances among the objects and events of the world is a constant avocation of the human mind."

Vulgar. By the many, this word is probably more frequently used improperly than properly. As a noun, it means the common people, the lower orders, the multitude, the many; as an adjective, it means coarse, low, unrefined, as "the vulgar people." The sense in which it is misused is that of immodest, indecent. The wearing, for example, of a gown too short at the top may be indecent, but is not vulgar.

Was. "He said he had come to the conclusion that there was no God." "The greatest of Byron's works was his whole work taken together."—Matthew Arnold. What is true at all times should be expressed by using the verb in the present tense. The sentences above should read is, not was.

Wharf. See Dock.

What. "He would not believe but what I did it": read, but that. "I do not doubt but what I shall go to Boston to-morrow": read, doubt that. We say properly, "I have nothing but what you see"; "You have brought everything but what I wanted."

Whence. As this adverb means—unaided—from what place, source, or cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a vicious mode of speech" to say from whence, Milton to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there any more propriety in the phrase from thence, as thence means—unaided—from that place. "Whence do you come?" not "From whence do you come?" Likewise, "He went hence," not "from hence."

Whether. This conjunction is often improperly repeated in a sentence; thus, "I have not decided whether I shall go to Boston or whether I shall go to Philadelphia."

Which. This pronoun as an interrogative applies to persons as well as to things; as a relative, it is now made to refer to things only.

"Which is employed in coördinate sentences, where it, or they, and a conjunction might answer the purpose; thus, 'At school I studied geometry, which (and it) I found useful afterward.' Here the new clause is something independent added to the previous clause, and not limiting that clause in any way. So in the adjectival clause; as, 'He struck the poor dog, which (and it, or although it) had never done him harm.' Such instances represent the most accurate meaning of which. Who and which might be termed the coördinating relatives.

"Which is likewise used in restrictive clauses that limit or explain the antecedent; as, 'The house which he built still remains.' Here the clause introduced by which specifies, or points out, the house that is the subject of the statement, namely, by the circumstance that a certain person built it. As remarked with regard to who, our most idiomatic writers prefer that in this particular application, and would say, 'The house that he built still remains.'"

"Which sometimes has a special reference attaching to it, as the neuter relative: 'Cæsar crossed the Rubicon, which was in effect a declaration of war.' The antecedent in this instance is not Rubicon, but the entire clause.

"There is a peculiar usage where which may seem to be still regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John is a soldier, which I should like to be,' that is, 'And I should like to be a soldier.'" See That.

Who. There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not make frequent mistakes in the use of this pronoun. They say, "Who did you see?" "Who did you meet?" "Who did he marry?" "Who did you hear?" "Who did he know?" "Who are you writing to?" "Who are you looking at?" In all these sentences the interrogative pronoun is in the objective case, and should be used in the objective form, which is whom, and not who. To show that these sentences are not correct, and are not defensible by supposing any ellipsis whatsoever, we have only to put the questions in another form. Take the first one, and, instead of "Who did you see?" say, "Who saw you?" which, if correct, justifies us in saying, "Who knew he," which is the equivalent of "Who did he know?" But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly not correct, since it says directly the opposite of what is intended.

Who was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth century. Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books, who is frequently employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man who spoke to us yesterday.'"

"Here the clause introduced by who is necessary to define or explain the antecedent the man; without it, we do not know who the man is. Such relative clauses are typical adjective clauses—i. e., they have the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the restrictive use of the relative.

"Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers and speakers is to prefer that to who in this application.

"Who is properly used in such coördinate sentences as, 'I met the watchman, who told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; in such a case, and he might be substituted for who.

"Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolve who into a personal or demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles, who (for he, seeing that he) knows nothing of the matter?'

"Who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom. For many good writers and speakers say 'who are you talking of?' 'who does the garden belong to?' 'who is this for?' 'who from?'" etc.

If this be true—if who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom—then, of course, such expressions as "Who did you see?" "Who did you meet?" "Who did he marry?" "Who were you with?" "Who will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one will dispute; but that they are correct, few grammarians will concede. See That.

Whole. This word is sometimes most improperly used for all; thus, "The whole Germans seem to be saturated with the belief that they are really the greatest people on earth, and that they would be universally recognized as being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest." "The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is to conquer the world."—Alison.

Wholesome. See Healthy.

Whose. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of whose as the possessive of which. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, use of which instead of whose." The correctness of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the possessive case of which that in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to of which. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive of who is properly whose. The pronoun which, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This was supplied, in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the possessive of who, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, whose end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, the end of which is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use."

Professor Bain says: "Whose, although the possessive of who, and practically of which, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those faults whose deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is better than 'the deformity of which we have seen.' 'Propositions of whose truth we have no certain knowledge.'—Locke." Dr. Fitzedward Hall says that the use of whose for of which, where the antecedent is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high authority for several hundred years.

Widow Woman. Since widows are always women, why say a widow woman? It would be perfectly correct to say a widowed woman.

Widowhood. There is good authority for using this word in speaking of men as well as of women.

Without. This word is often improperly used instead of unless; as, "You will never live to my age without you keep yourself in breath and exercise"; "I shall not go without my father consents": properly, unless my father consents, or, without my father's consent.

Worst. We should say at the worst, not at worst.

Wove. The past participle of the verb to weave is woven. "Where was this cloth woven?" not wove.

You are mistaken. See Mistaken.

You was. Good usage does, and it is to be hoped always will, consider you was a gross vulgarism, certain grammarians to the contrary notwithstanding. You is the form of the pronoun in the second person plural, and must, if we would speak correctly, be used with the corresponding form of the verb. The argument that we use you in the singular number is so nonsensical that it does not merit a moment's consideration. It is a custom we have—and have in common with other peoples—to speak to one another in the second person plural, and that is all there is of it. The Germans speak to one another in the third person plural. The exact equivalent in German of our How are you? is, How are they? Those who would say you was should be consistent, and in like manner say you has and you does.

Yours, &c. The ignorant and obtuse not unfrequently profess themselves at the bottom of their letters "Yours, &c." And so forth! forth what? Few vulgarisms are equally offensive, and none could be more so. In printing correspondence, the newspapers often content themselves with this short-hand way of intimating that the writer's name was preceded by some one of the familiar forms of ending letters; this an occasional dunderhead seems to think is sufficient authority for writing himself, Yours, &c.

THE END.