STANDARD DESK-BOOK SERIES

A Desk-Book of
Errors in English

Including Notes on Colloquialisms and Slang to be Avoided in Conversation

By Frank H. Vizetelly, Litt.D., LL.D.

Managing Editor of “Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary of the English Language”; Author of “Essentials of English Speech and Literature,” Etc.

A REVISED EDITION

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY
NEW YORK and LONDON

Copyright, 1906 and 1920, by
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY

[Printed in the United States of America]

Copyright Under the Articles of the Copyright Convention
of the Pan-American Republics and the United States,
August 11, 1910

Published January 1, 1920

All Rights Reserved

PREFACE

The fact that this little book has passed through many editions, and now enters on a new one in revised form, is ample answer to its writer’s prayer when, with the aid of his Publishers, he launched it on an uncertain voyage over the seas of time—

It is with sincere gratitude to the Publishers that the author acknowledges the results achieved to have been due wholly to their kindly interest and indefatigable efforts. He ventures to hope that this new edition, and such subsequent editions as time may require, will be found to measure fully up to the expectations of the discriminating Public on which it depends for support.

F. H. V.

New York, January, 1920.

INTRODUCTORY

In these days when the vernacular of the street invades the home; when illiterate communications corrupt good grammar; and when the efforts of the teachers in the public schools are rendered ineffective by parents careless of their diction, constant attempts are being made to point out the way to that “Well of English undefiled” so dear to the heart of the purist. But, notwithstanding these efforts to correct careless diction, the abuse and misuse of words continue. The one besetting sin of the English-speaking people is a tendency to use colloquial inelegancies, slang, and vulgarisms, and against these, as against the illiteracies of the street, it is our duty to guard, nowadays more so than at any other time, since what is learnt in the schoolroom is soon forgotten or displaced by association with illiterate playfellows, or by occasionally hearing words misused at home.

Of the purely syntactical side of the English language, no less a master of its intricacies and niceties than Thomas Jefferson has said “I am not a friend to a scrupulous purism of style; I readily sacrifice the niceties of syntax to euphony and strength. It is by boldly neglecting the rigorisms of grammar that Tacitus has made himself the strongest writer in the world. The hyperesthetics call him barbarous; but I should be sorry to exchange his barbarisms for their wiredrawn purisms. Some of his sentences are as strong as language can make them. Had he scrupulously filled up the whole of their syntax, they would have been merely common. To explain my meaning by an English example, I will quote the motto of one, I believe, of the regicides, of Charles I., ‘Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.’ Correct its syntax ‘Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.’ It has lost all the strength and beauty of the antithesis.” And Jefferson continued: “Where strictness of grammar does not weaken expression, it should be attended to. But where, by small grammatical negligences, the energy of an idea is condensed, or a word stands for a sentence, I hold grammatical rigor in contempt.”

The English language is the most flexible language in the world. Indeed, it is so flexible that some of its idioms are positively startling. Could any phrase be more so than “I don’t think it will rain”?—Simple enough as an idiom but positively absurd when analyzed. We say “I don’t think it will rain” when we mean “I do think it will not rain.” Again, we say “All over the world” when we should say “Over all the world,” and “the reason why” instead of “the reason that.” Usage has made our language what it is; grammatical rules strive to limit it to what it ought to be. In many instances usage has supplanted grammatical rules. Hundreds of words have been used by masters of English in ways that violate these rules. These uses are to be found to-day recorded by the dictionaries because lexicographers recognize it is their duty to present the language as they find it used by the people. It is to the people, not to the purists, that one must look for the enriching of our mother tongue. To them it is as impossible to confine the English language within the bonds of grammatical rules as it is to stem the tide of the sea. For them all matters that relate to English speech can be decided only by the law of good usage. This, and this alone is their Court of Last Resort. Withal, the observance of certain conventional rules does no harm if it helps him who speaks carelessly to produce a refined style of diction and writing, or if it teaches him who does not know, what to say and how to say it.

The secret of strength in speech and writing lies in the art of using the right word in the right place; therefore, careful speakers and writers should aim to command not only a large vocabulary but a wide and correct knowledge of the meanings of words. These can be most readily acquired by noting the meaning of every new word across which one may come in reading, and by constantly consulting a dictionary, preferably one which compares or contrasts words in such a manner as to bring out clearly the finer and nicer distinctions in their meanings—such distinctions as are necessary to the student to put him into possession of the essential differences of the words compared. Learn the meaning of words and your tongue will never slip. As Southey has said, “the greatest wisdom of speech is to know when, and what, and where to speak; the time, matter, and manner.”

The best asset in life is knowledge. Knowledge well-grounded may be secured by the systematic study of words. The desirability of exercising great care not only in the selection of words, but in marshaling them in their correct order must be apparent to any one familiar with some of the errors committed by writers who, notwithstanding the blunders they have made, have acquired reputation as authors of good English. Dr. Samuel Johnson, in his “Lives of the Poets,” is responsible for the following statement: “Shakespeare has not only shown human nature as it is, but as it would be found in situations to which it cannot be exposed”—a statement the absurdity of which can not fail to impress the reader.

In the King James Version of the Bible, quoted by some authorities as a standard of pure English, one may find the following, which occurs in Isaiah xxxvii. 36: “Then the angel of the Lord went forth and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand; and when they arose early in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses.” It can hardly be supposed that the translators meant to imply that the corpses arose early in the morning and found themselves dead. In the second act of “Julius Cæsar,” Shakespeare puts into the mouth of Ligarius the following: “I will strive with things impossible; yea, get the better of them.” For power of perseverance Ligarius is to be commended. Hallam, author of the “Literature of Europe,” declared that “No one as yet had exhibited the structure of the human kidneys, Vesilius having only examined them in dogs”—a declaration which implies that the dog must have bolted them whole. The London Times has occasionally perpetrated absurdities which equal, if they do not surpass, these. In an obituary announcing the death of Baron Dowse it said, “A great Irishman has passed away. God grant that many as great, and who shall as wisely love their country, may follow him.” Here the intended wish is not that many great Irishmen may die but that there may be many to follow him who shall love their country as well as he did. An equally absurd example taken from an issue of the Freeman’s Journal of the year 1890, announces “The health of Mr. Parnell has lately taken a very serious turn, and fears of his recovery are entertained by his friends,” which, one may add, was rather unfriendly on their part. Isaac Disraeli in his “Curiosities of Literature” himself was guilty of an absurdity when he wrote, “It is curious to observe the various substitutes for paper before its invention.”

Errors of a different sort found their way even into our earlier dictionaries. Cockeram defined a lynx as “a spotted beast which hath the most perfect sight in so much as it is said that it can see through a wall.” The salamander he described as “a small venomous beast with foure feet and a short taile; it lives in the fire, and at length by its extreme cold puts out the fire.” Both of these definitions show the rudimentary stage of the knowledge of our forefathers in matters zoological.

Of slang no less eminent a writer of English than Richard Grant White has said, “Slang is a vocabulary of genuine words or unmeaning jargon, used always with an arbitrary and conventional signification,” and because “it is mostly coarse, low, and foolish,” certain slang terms and phrases have been included in the following pages, together with a few undesirable colloquialisms. These are included because the indiscriminate use of slang leads to slovenliness in speech. Not all slang is slovenly, incorrect, or vicious; much of it is virile, expressive, and picturesque. It is against the spread of that part of slang which is slovenly, incorrect, foolish, or vicious, that one should guard.

The purpose of these pages is not to dictate a precise course to be followed, nor to lay down rules that will prevent any speaker or writer from exercising his privilege as an individual of speaking or writing freely and independently the thoughts that are uppermost in his mind. It is, rather, to point out common errors which he may unconsciously commit, and to help him to avoid them and the vulgarisms of the street which have crept into the language, as well as those absurd blunders that have been recorded as the unconscious acts of persons qualified in other respects to rank as masters of English. To this end, and to this end only, the following vocabulary of errors in English has been compiled.

Thanks are due to the Funk & Wagnalls Company for permission to cite freely from the “Standard Dictionary of the English Language” in the following pages.

A DESK-BOOK OF
ERRORS IN ENGLISH

A

a, an: Before an aspirated “h,” as in “Hibernianism,” the article “a” should be used. “A” is used when the next word begins with a consonant sound; “an” when it begins with a vowel or silent “h.” Though never so feebly aspirated, “h” has something of a consonant sound, and the article in this case ought to conform to the general principle, as in “a historic introduction has generally a happy effect to arouse attention.” To be correct one should say: an island, a Highlander; an oysterman, a hoister; a hotel, an onion; a herb, an heir; a house, an owl. Some persons do not aspirate the “h” in “herb”; when the “h” is not aspirated, the word takes the article “an,” not “a.”

abandon, forsake, desert: To abandon is to give up entirely, as home and friends, and implies previous association with responsibility for or control; to forsake is to leave or withdraw from a person or place, and suggests previous association with inclination or attachment. Abandon and forsake may be used in a favorable or unfavorable sense. Desert is to leave permanently and especially without regard for the person or thing deserted; it is used only in an unfavorable sense and usually implies a breach of duty.

Some writers assert that desert is used only “of causes or persons but not of things.” This is erroneous. There is ample evidence of its correct application to things; as the soldier deserts his colors; the sailor deserts his ship.

abbreviate, abridge: Discriminate carefully between these words. To abbreviate is to shorten a word so that a part stands for the whole; to abridge is to condense or epitomize, as a report, in such manner that the spirit of the original is retained though it is expressed in fewer words.

ability, capacity: These words are not exactly synonymous in meaning when used in the singular. Ability is bodily or mental power; capacity is receptive or containing power. Ability when used in the plural embraces both meanings.

about. Compare ALMOST.

above: Inelegantly used as a noun by ellipsis of some noun as “He wrote the above,” for “the above phrase.” A more objectionable use is as an adjective; as, “I submit the above facts” for “I submit the above-mentioned facts.” The use of the word “foregoing” or the more legal expression “before-mentioned” would better meet the case. Lamb, always inclined to be humorous, ridicules the expression by referring to “the above boys and the below boys.”

above should not be used for “more than.”

acceptance, acceptation: Terms sometimes used interchangeably but incorrectly so. “Acceptance” is the state of being accepted; as the acceptance of a position or office; acceptation is the favorable admission of or acquiescence in a matter, or assent to a belief.

accept of: A visitor does not accept of the hospitality of his host, but accepts his hospitality. In this phrase “of” is redundant.

accident, injury: These words are used sometimes incorrectly. An “accident” is that which happens without known or assignable cause or without deliberate intention; an “injury” is a hurt that causes physical or mental pain resulting, as from an accident. An accident may be injurious, and injuries painful; but accidents should never be spoken of as painful.

accord should not be used for give. To accord is “to render or concede as due and proper, as honor or veneration;” to give is “to bestow as appropriate; as to give thanks, praise, or welcome.”

accord, award: The first of these words implies a spontaneous bestowal prompted by the dictates of the heart (Latin cor, cord-, heart); the concession or grant due to inherent merit that cannot be denied. Award is colder and more unimpassioned and formal, and implies a grant only after careful observation and judgment. You accord honor where honor is individually due, but award a medal to a victor out of many (actual or possible) contestants.

acme. Compare CLIMAX.

acoustic (a.), acoustics (n.): When the adjective is used the verb must agree in number with the noun which the adjective qualifies; as, “the acoustic properties of this theater are good.” But the noun though plural in form is singular in construction and always takes a verb in the singular as, “acoustics is a branch of physics.”

acquaintance. Compare FRIEND.

acquiesce: Never use the preposition “with” after this word. You acquiesce in an arrangement.

act, action: Do not use one word for the other. A man does a good act rather than a good action. An act is accomplished by an exercise of power, whereas an action is the fact of exerting such power and refers to the modus operandi. A party to a conveyance signifies his exercise of power by the formula “This is my act and deed,” but the course pursued, the procedure—the fact of sale and purchase—may be referred to as a wise action.

adherence, adhesion, attachment: These terms are no longer synonymous, although originally so. Adherence is used of things mental or spiritual, as principles, while adhesion is applied to material things. The figurative meaning of adhere appears in adherence, which is somewhat synonymous with attachment and applies to mental conditions or principles. Adhesion is generally reserved for physical attachment; as, “an adhesion effected by glue,” although Dowden in his “Studies in Literature” (p. 230,) has written “Browning’s courageous adhesion to truth never deserts him.” Far better is Johnson’s “Shakespeare’s adherence to general nature has exposed him to the censure of critics, who form their judgments upon narrower principles.”

adjective and adverb: In selecting the correct word to use, bear in mind that where a phrase denoting manner can be substituted an adverb is required; where some tense of the verb to be can be used the adjective is necessary; as, “The surgeon felt the limb carefully and found that one of the bones was broken.”

admission. Compare ADMITTANCE.

admit, admit of: Very different in meaning. “This gate admits (affords entrance) to the grounds, but the size of the vehicle will not admit of (allow or permit) its passing through.” Where Emerson says “Every action admits of being outdone,” the simple admit could not be substituted.

admittance, admission: These words are not merely synonymous. Admittance refers to place, admission refers also to position, privilege, favor, friendship, etc. An intruder may gain admittance to the hall of a society who would not be allowed admission to its membership.

advantage, benefit: Exercise care in using these words. Advantage is that which gives one a vantage-ground, either for coping with competitors or with difficulties, needs, or demands; as, “to have the advantage of a good education.” It is frequently used of what one has beyond another or secures at the expense of another; as, “to have the advantage of another in an argument,” or “to take advantage of another in a bargain.” Benefit is anything that does one good.

adverbs and the infinitive “to.” See SPLIT INFINITIVE.

a few. Condemned as employing the singular article before an adjective plural in sense. Usage sanctions a hundred and a great many, these expressions being viewed as collective. A few is correct idiomatic English, with a sense distinctively different from that of the adjective used alone; as, “A few men can be trusted” (i. e., a small but appreciable number). “Few men can be trusted” (i. e., scarcely any) is practically equivalent to the negative statement “Most men are not to be trusted.”

affect. Compare EFFECT.

against: Never shorten this preposition into again. Such a usage is either dialectical or obsolete; and save in such usage there is no preposition again, or as sometimes spoken by persons careless with their speech agen.

aggravate, exasperate, irritate, provoke: A fever or a misfortune may be aggravated, but not a person. The person is, perhaps, exasperated or provoked. To aggravate, from the Latin aggravo “to make heavy,” is to intensify, and applies only to conditions of fact; provoke, which calls forth anger, and exasperate, which heightens (or roughens) anger already provoked, allude to mental states. A patient may be so irritated that his condition is aggravated. Here to aggravate is to make worse; to irritate is to annoy, provoke.

ago. Compare SINCE.

agreeable: Do not spell this word agreable. Its component parts are agree plus able; always double the “e” before the “a.” Agreeable is often erroneously used for agreeably in correspondence. In this sense it is a commercial colloquialism, meaning “being in accordance or conformity,” as with some previous action. “Agreeable to your request I have forwarded the goods.” Correctly, this should be rendered “Agreeably with your request, etc.,” meaning “so as to be agreeable.”

agreeably. Compare AGREEABLE.

aid. Compare HELP.

ain’t: Avoid as inelegant. In such a phrase as “he ain’t,” it is both vulgar and ungrammatical; “he isn’t” is the preferred form. “The contraction ain’t for isn’t is a vulgarism which ought not to need criticism. Yet ‘’tain’t so’ said an educated preacher once in my hearing. The safe rule respecting contractions is never to use them in public speech. This is the instinct of a perfect taste.” Austin Phelps, English Style, lecture ii. p. 25.

alienate, antagonize: Alienate which means “estrange,” should never be used for antagonize, meaning “contend against” or “bring into opposition.” Thus, you alienate your friend because you antagonize his views.

all. See under ANY, WHOLE, and compare UNIVERSALLY.

allege: Do not spell this word alledge. It has no connection whatever with ledge, a shelf. Allege is derived from the Latin adlegio, clear, and came to England with the Normans in the Norman French form aligier, Old French, esligier, from the Latin, ex, out, and litigo, to carry strife. It means, to assert.

alleviate, relieve: Distinguished from relieve, as alleviate, by lightening (Latin ad, to, + levis, light), mitigates or makes less burdensome, and relieve, by removing (Latin re, again, + levis, lifting up), supplies what is wanting.

all of them: This phrase furnishes an excellent example of the common carelessness of speech. Of signifies from or from out; and whereas one can subtract a certain quantity from an entire number, one can hardly refer to that number as still existing, in any shape whatever, if one subtracts the whole; for from out implies a remainder. You may say “ship some, or any definite number, say ten of them,” or “ship them all,” but not “ship all of them.”

all over the world: A common but undesirable locution for “all the world over” or “over all the world.”

allow, permit: Discriminate carefully between these words. Allow implies no attempt at hindrance; permit suggests authorization to do. One allows that to which one interposes no objection or takes no step to prevent; one permits that to which one gives express consent or authorization. In some parts of the United States allow is used in the sense of “think, think likely, intend”; as, “he allowed he would go”; “he allowed to pay it.” It is used also in the sense of say. Both uses are wholly inadmissible.

Allude is from the Latin alludo, treat lightly, from ad, at, and ludo, play, and should be used only with the sense of “to refer incidentally, indirectly, or by suggestion.” When you toast a hero by name, you certainly do not allude to him, although in so doing you make a pretty allusion to the heroic act with which his name is identified. In toasting Dewey, you do not allude to him but to his deeds off Manila.

allusion: Distinguish between this word and illusion. The former is derived from the Latin ad, at, + ludo, play (treat lightly), and means an incidental suggestion or passing reference, a species of innuendo; the latter is derived from in, on, + ludo play (play tricks on), and means an unreal image presented to the senses.

almost: “An adjective in early English, the use of which has recently been revived, but it has not received the sanction of general usage.”—Standard Dictionary.

An “almost Christian” is, however, a most expressive term, and would oftentimes more nearly express the truth than the absolute and unqualified “Christian.” Compare MOST.

almost, about: These words are now commonly used as interchangeable synonyms. Formerly, such use was condemned. One may say of a task that it is “almost completed” or that it is “about completed” meaning that it is nearly accomplished or approaches closely to a completed state.

already: Although this word consists of two elements “all” and “ready,” it is not correctly spelled with two “l’s” but already.

also, likewise: According to some writers also merely denotes addition, and likewise denotes connection with some person or thing that has previously been referred to. Likewise, which means “in like manner,” of necessity refers to states and conditions which are susceptible of manner, and should not be used indiscriminately for also, which properly connects facts and qualities. There is, for example, a considerable difference between the expressions “He spoke also” and “He spoke likewise.” In the second case, the matter of speech may be considered to have been to the same effect as the speech first alluded to. Lexicographers do not recognize this difference.

alternative: “This word means a choice—one choice—between two things. Yet popular usage has so corrupted it, that it is now commonly applied to the things themselves, and not to the choice between them, as ‘You may take either alternative,’ ‘I was forced to choose between two alternatives.’ And, indeed, some people go so far as to say ‘several alternatives were presented him.’”—E. S. Gould, Good English, Misused Words, p. 45.

always, all ways: Discriminate carefully between these terms. Always means “during all time”; all ways means “in every way.”

amateur, novice: These terms are not synonymous. The distinction between them is that an amateur may be the equal in skill of a professional, but a novice is a beginner, and as such does not equal the professional in skill.

amid, among: Discriminate carefully between these words. Amid denotes position when one object is surrounded by others from which it differs in nature or characteristics; among denotes an intermingling of objects of the same nature. A man may be amid enemies but not among them; he may be among friends but not amid them.

among, between: Among may apply to any number; between applies to two only.

an: Modern practice does not permit of the use of an before words beginning with an aspirated “h” as, “hair,” “hall,” “harangue,” “hero,” “history,” “historical,” “historian,” “house,” “hypothesis,” “heraldic,” etc. However, it may be correctly used before words in which the initial “h” is not aspirated. Compare A, AN.

ancient, antiquated: Anything antiquated is ancient but not all things that are ancient are antiquated; thus ancient refers to things that existed in olden times; antiquated to things obsolete or that have fallen behind the times.

and, (the relative preceded by): Where “and” is used to connect two clauses the clauses must be of similar construction. Therefore, do not say, “I met Florence on Wednesday, and which was very pleasing to me,” which is not only grammatically incorrect, but is faulty in that it introduces an altogether useless word. Omit the “and.”

and, to: These terms are not interchangeable. One does not “try and do a task,” but “one tries to do it.”

anger. Compare TEMPER.

angry. Compare MAD.

angry at, with: A man may be angry at or about a hurt, never with it; he is angry at rather than with a dog. We may be angry with a person.

annoyed at, by, with: Note the correct use of the prepositions. “He will be annoyed at or by complaints” (if they are made); “He will be annoyed with complaints” (because they will surely be made).

another from: Misused for another than; as, “judges of quite another stamp from his Majesty’s judges of Assize,” for “of quite another stamp than,” etc.

another such: These words should be used always in this order. Avoid “such another mistake,” as incorrect; “another such mistake” is better.

answer, reply: Discriminate carefully between these words. The Standard Dictionary, quoting Crabb says, “an answer is made to a question; a reply is made to an assertion;” but, it continues, “this statement is too limited, as an answer is made to a charge as well as to a question.... A reply is an unfolding, and implies both thought and intelligence. Reply implies the formal dissection of a statement previously made; answer, a ready return of words to a question or charge that is made.”

antagonize, veto, oppose, forbid: Antagonize is distinguished from veto or oppose. In the sense of “neutralize” or “deprive of active power” you may antagonize a disease, while you oppose or veto a bill. To forbid is to prohibit with authority; to veto is to forbid authoritatively, with or without the right to do so. Compare ALIENATE.

ante-, anti-: Discriminate carefully between these prefixes. Ante- means “before;” anti- means “opposite to.” Antediluvian means “before the flood”; Antichrist means “opposed to Christ.”

anticipate, expect, hope: As anticipate implies “expectation with confidence and pleasure,” never use it where mere expectation is meant, which applies to that which we have good reason to believe will happen. “I hope for a visit from my friend, though I have no word from him; I expect it, when he writes that he is coming; and as the time draws near I anticipate it,” for I look forward to it with confidence and pleasure.

antiquated. Compare ANCIENT.

any, all, at all: Avoid using any adverbially in place of the adjective. Don’t say “Did you sleep any?” when you mean “Did you have any sleep?” or “Did you sleep at all?”

any place, some place: “He won’t go any place;” “I want to go some place.” Say, rather, “He won’t go anywhere;” “I want to go somewhere.” These are solecisms, unfortunately common, which should be avoided. “Place” may be used as an indirect object only when preceded by a preposition.

anyway, anywhere: Frequently misspelled anyways, anywheres. These words should never be written with a final s.

apostasy: In modern usage the last syllable is spelled with an s. The alternative spelling, apostacy, though occasionally used, is not preferred.

apparent, evident, manifest: Do not confound apparent with evident, because what is apparent may or may not be evident. That is apparent which appears to be, as apparent sincerity; but appearances may be false. Things are not always what they seem. “That is evident of which the mind is made sure by some inference that supplements the fact of perception. That is manifest which we can lay the hand upon: manifest is thus stronger than evident, as touch is more absolute than sight.” See HEIR.

appear, seem: Discriminate carefully between these words. Appear refers to that which manifests itself to the senses; seem applies to that which is manifest to the mind on reflection. Seem gives or creates the impression of being. A man may seem honest but cannot appear so.

apprehend, comprehend: These terms are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. To apprehend is to perceive; to comprehend is to understand.

argue. Compare AUGUR.

arraign at, before, for, on, after: “The criminal was arraigned at the court” is incorrect; a criminal is arraigned at the bar; before the court; for a crime; on an indictment; after the discovery of his crime.

articles: Two or more words connected by and referring to different things should each be preceded by the article; but when they denote the same thing, the article is commonly used with the first only. “The black-and-white horse” would denote one horse marked with the two colors black and white. “The black and the white horse” would denote two horses, one black and the other white.

as ... as, so ... as. The Standard Dictionary says: A shade of difference in their meanings, as strictly used in comparisons, is often neglected. So ... as suggests that, in the comparison of the persons or things mentioned, there is present in the mind of the speaker a consciousness of a considerable degree of the quality considered; as ... as does not carry this impression. In “John is not as tall as James” there is no implication that the speaker regards either John or James as tall; there is merely a comparison of their heights. So, too, in “John is not as old as James” there is merely a comparison of ages. But if one says, “John is not so tall as James,” though the so is not emphasized, there is understood usually to be a reference more or less distinct to something uncommon in the height of James as compared with the stature of other men or of other boys of his age; the speaker regards James as being tall. “John is not so old as James” suggests that, in some relation or other, James is thought of as being old; as in “James is taller than John.” “Yes, but my boy is not so old as yours.”

In affirmative sentences so ... as can not properly be used except in certain restricted constructions, and where the quality referred to is to be emphasized. It occurs oftenest in sentences that, though affirmative in form, carry a negative suggestion; as, “So good a cook as Polly is hard to find,” that is, “It is not easy to find so good a cook as Polly.”