Syntax, which is a part of grammar, is sometimes confused with grammar itself. It is that part of grammar which treats of the sentence and of its construction, and embraces, among other features, the doctrine of the collocation of words in sentences in connected speech, treating of their arrangement and relative positions, as required by grammatical connection, euphony, and clearness and energy of expression.

The “New English Dictionary,” edited at Oxford University by Dr. J. A. H. Murray, treating this subject says:

In defining grammar, Lindley Murray wrote “English grammar is the art of speaking and writing the English language with propriety.” Following the style of the Standard Dictionary, Dr. Murray gives one of the meanings of grammar as follows; “Speech or writing judged as good or bad according as it conforms to or violates grammatical rules; also speech or writing that is correct according to those rules.”

If grammar can not be good or bad, as contended by the New York Herald’s editor, then it can not be true or false. Yet Dryden wrote, “And I doubt the word ‘they’ is false grammar” (Almanzor, II. Def. Epilogue); and Macaulay writing of Frederick the Great, said: “He had German enough to scold his servants, but his grammar and pronunciation are extremely bad” (Essays; Frederick the Great). Again, elsewhere, “The letter may still be read, with all the original bad grammar and bad spelling” (History of England, IV., xviii., 245). Both phrases are permissible. Compare BAD.

grammatical error: A common locution, but “an error in grammar,” is to be preferred as avoiding what is sometimes considered a violation of grammatical precision.

grant. Compare ACCORD.

grass, go to: A vulgar imperative meaning “get away” or “clear out!”

grass widow: A common term of disparagement applied to a woman abandoned by or separated from her husband: a term which is not used by persons of refinement and one that, if used at all, should be applied only with great care.

grass widower: A term used to denote a husband who lives apart from his wife or one from whom the wife is temporarily absent.

gratitude, thankfulness: Gratitude, from the Latin gratitudo, from gratus, kind, is a sense of appreciation of favors received, as indicated by actions. It is the actual feeling, of which thankfulness, or the fulness of thanks, is the mere outward expression. It is therefore quite possible, and indeed often the case, for a person who at one time is full of thanks to show subsequently a want of gratitude.

great. Compare BIG.

groom should not be used for “bridegroom.”

grouchy: A slang term for sulky or disgruntled.

grow sometimes used for become is gaining the sanction of usage; as, “to grow smaller.” In this sense grow has been used by such masters of English as Steele, Gray, Johnson, and Macaulay.

guess, suppose, think, conjecture: Words sometimes used incorrectly. We guess when we are content to hazard an opinion based on data which are admittedly insufficient, but we suppose when we have good ground for assuming a thing to be true. When we think, we give thought to a matter on which we yet admit the thought has been insufficient to furnish us with exact or certain knowledge. Thinking is allied to conjecturing, in which, though holding a pronounced opinion, this falls short of absolute conviction. We guess the outcome of an event, but suppose that an event which has happened may result in good. We think that a certain medicine may effect a cure, but if we have tried it successfully before for a similar complaint, conjecture that it will, although not being absolutely sure that the conditions are precisely the same we are not convinced and do not know.

gums. Compare RUBBERS.

H

habit, custom, usage: Discriminate carefully between these words. In strict usage habit pertains exclusively to the individual; custom to a race or nation of people, as, the customs of the Jews. Usage refers particularly to habitual practise or something permitted by it or done in accordance with it.

had better, would better: Although according to grammatical rule had better is incorrect, it has been used by writers of correct English and it may be found repeatedly in the English Classics. Therefore, it is generally considered good usage and preferable to would better which, though correct, is seldom heard and usually considered pedantic.

had, have: In such a phrase as “Had I have heard of it,” the verb have is redundant, for had here is used elliptically for if I had, and carries the contingency to the past. Care should be taken to avoid such locutions as the example given which is one of a class that stamps those who make use of them as grossly ignorant.

had ought: The use of any part of the verb have with ought is a vulgarism. Not “I had ought to have written,” but simply “I ought to have written”; not “He hadn’t ought to have done it,” but “He ought not to have done it.”

had rather, had better: Forms disputed by certain critics, from the days of Samuel Johnson, the critics insisting upon the substitution of would or should, as the case may demand, for had; but had rather and had better are thoroughly established English idioms having the almost universal popular and literary sanction of centuries. “I would rather not go” is undoubtedly correct when the purpose is to emphasize the element of choice or will in the matter; but in all ordinary cases “I had rather not go” has the merit of being idiomatic and easily and universally understood.

If for “You had better stay at home,” we substitute “You should better stay at home,” an entirely different meaning is expressed, the idea of expediency giving place to that of obligation.—Standard Dictionary.

“Would rather may always be substituted for had rather. Might rather would not have the same meaning. Would and should do not go well with better. In one instance can is admissible. ‘I can better afford,’ because can is especially associated with afford. We may say might better, but it has neither the sanction, the idiomatic force, nor the precise meaning of had better.”—Samuel Ramsey, Eng. Lang. and Gram. pt. ii. ch. 6, p. 413.

hail, hale: Hail is pronounced as hale (robust; sound) but should be distinguished therefrom, although for that word there is an alternative spelling hail, which, however, is rarely used. Hale is from Icelandish heill, sound; hail is from the Anglo-Saxon, haegel, frozen rain.

hain’t: A common vulgarism for have not, haven’t, and made worse, if possible, by being used also for has not or hasn’t; as “I hain’t,” “He hain’t,” etc. “I haven’t,” “He hasn’t,” are permissible, “haven’t I?” “hasn’t he?” are acceptable in conversation. But when the subject precedes in the first person singular and the plural, it is preferable to abbreviate the verb; as, “I’ve not” “you’ve not,” etc.

half: Inasmuch as in equivalent terms of the whole there can not be a single half but must be two halves, one should speak of dividing (the whole) into two or into halves rather than of cutting (it) in half.

half-cock, to go off at: A colloquial phrase denoting “to speak before one is ready”; not used by persons accustomed to refined diction.

handful: This word has for a plural handfuls. “Two handfuls of flour” means a handful taken twice, whereas hands full means both hands full. This last term is often erroneously written handsful.

handy: Properly said of articles on which one may lay the hand, or possibly of persons, as attendants, ready at hand for service. Applied to neighborhood, “near,” “near by,” “close at hand,” or the like are to be preferred.

hang: This verb has for its perfect tense and past participle two forms, hanged and hung; but in the sense of execution (sus per col), the former term is alone correctly used, whereas in other senses the latter is applied. Thus, one may say, “A hat is hung on a peg, but a murderer is hanged on the gallows,” and not that the hat is hanged nor that the murderer is hung.

hanger on: A colloquialism for “a dependent or parasite:” the term is inelegant and therefore undesirable.

hangs on: As a substitute for “remains,” the expression finds no favor.

happen. Compare TRANSPIRE.

happen in, to: A colloquialism often met in rural districts and used for “to make a chance social call,” or “to drop in casually” as one passes by.

happiness. Compare PLEASURE.

hard case: An American colloquialism for a person of pronounced or curious type.

hardly. Compare SCARCELY.

hardy. Compare RUGGED.

hasten, hurry: Although both words imply a celerity of action, the former presupposes consideration and is not opposed to good order, whereas the latter is indicative of perturbation and a measure of irregularity. Therefore these terms are not synonymous. Phelps in his “English Style in Public Discourse,” says “the first does not imply confusion; the second does.” Lexicographers do not restrict the meaning of hurry to “to confuse by undue haste or suddenness,” but define it as “to cause to be done rapidly or more rapidly; accelerate.” You hasten to congratulate but hurry to catch a train.

have: On the use of this word the Standard Dictionary says; Used in the past tense following another past tense, a use often indiscriminately condemned, though sometimes proper and necessary. (1) Improper construction. Where what was “meant,” “intended,” or the like was, at the time when intended, some act (as of going, writing, or speaking) future in its purpose and not past, and therefore not to be expressed by a past tense; as, “He meant to have gone” for “He meant to go”; “I meant to have written to you, but forgot it,” for “I meant to write,” etc.; “I had intended to have spoken to him about it,” for “I had intended to speak,” etc.; “I should like to have gone” for “I should have liked to go.” The infinitive with to expresses the relation of an act as so conceived, so that both analogy and prevalent usage require “meant to go” instead of “meant to have gone.” Such construction, although occasional instances of it still occur in works of authors of the highest literary reputation, and still often heard in conversation, is now generally regarded as ungrammatical.

(2) Proper construction. The doubling of the past tenses in connection with the use of have with a past participle is proper and necessary when the completion of the future act was intended before the occurrence of something else mentioned or thought of. Attention to this qualification, which has been overlooked in the criticism of tense-formation and connection, is especially important and imperative. If one says, “I meant to have visited Paris and to have returned to London before my father arrived from America,” the past infinitive in the dependent clause is necessary for the expression of the completion of the acts purposed. “I meant to visit Paris and to return to London before my father arrived from America,” may convey suggestively the thought intended, but does not express it.

have seen, seen, saw: In combining words that denote time always observe the order and fitness of time. Do not say “I have seen him last month”; say, rather, “I saw him last month.” Nor say, “I seen him this week”—a common error in grammar among the careless; say, rather, “I have seen him this week,” a form that should be used also, instead of “I saw him this week.”

he, she, her, him, etc.: Pronouns often used incorrectly; inexcusable errors in the educated, which are illustrated by such expressions as “If I were him (or her), I would,” etc. It should be “If I were he (or she), I would,” etc.

healthful, healthy: Discriminate carefully between these words. A healthful thing is one efficacious in promoting or causing health; healthy denotes condition or characteristics; as “a healthy child”; “a healthful climate.”

heap: A word sometimes used to designate a “large number.” A heap is “a collection of things piled up so as to form an elevation”; any other application of the word is colloquial.

hearty: As applied to the appetite is so common at this day that it seems perhaps hypercritical to object to it; and the dictionaries of course give the sense, for it is the lexicographer’s duty to record the language as it exists not as it ought to exist. That is hearty which proceeds from the heart; to extend the sentiment to the appetite, or to a meal, or to its eater, as is done by common usage, seems taking a liberty with the word, and applying a fine and expressive term to a comparatively unworthy object.

heir: Pronounce without aspirating the h. Distinguish between heir apparent and heir presumptive. The former is “one who must by course of law become the heir if he survive his ancestor”; the latter, “one whose present legal expectation of becoming heir may be defeated by the birth of a person in near degree of relationship.” Thus, a man may to-day be heir presumptive to his bachelor brother who by marriage may in a year’s time become the father of a son, who will then become heir apparent; and by this circumstance the claims of the former heir presumptive are quashed.

The Standard Dictionary says: “Heir is often colloquially applied to one who receives or is to receive a property by will. In legal terminology such a person is a devisee or legatee, not an heir.” As an heir does not exist till death either by will or operation of law, it is only by impropriety of speech that one talks of the heirs of the living.

help has the meaning of “assist”; it has also the somewhat opposed meaning of “prevent, hinder, or refrain from.” This veiled negative makes the correct application of the word difficult. Take, for example, the sentence “Make no more noise than you can help.” I can not help doing a thing is I can not refrain from doing it: that is, I can not not do it, which means I must do it. The correct form of the sentence just given is shown by filling in the ellipsis, whence it appears that not should also be supplied: “Make no more noise than (such as) you can (not) help (making).” Help includes aid, but aid may fall short of the meaning of help.

herd: A term sometimes applied indiscriminately to persons as well as beasts. Herd is correctly used to designate, “a number of animals feeding or herding together;” when applied to persons the true designation is “a disorderly rabble,” or “the lower classes,” as the vulgar herd.

him and me: It is a vulgar error to use the objective for the nominative. One should not say, “Him and me are going to Bermuda,” say, rather, “He and I (or preferably ‘we’) are going to Bermuda.” Do not say, “Between you and I,” but say, “Between you and me,” or “Between us.”

hire. Compare LEASE.

holocaust: A term sometimes misused owing to a lexicographical error which attributes to the word the meaning of “any great disaster.” According to this the Johnstown Flood, the Galveston storm, and the fire in the Paris bazaar all were holocausts, but this is erroneous. Holocaust is derived from the Greek holos, entire, whole, and kaustos, burnt, and its principal meaning is “a sacrificial offering burnt whole or entirely consumed.” Figuratively, the term may be applied to destruction by fire, as the burning of the steamer “General Slocum” in the East River, New York, or the great fire in Baltimore, but not to loss as by shipwreck or collision unless attended by fire.

holy: The word means not only “morally excellent” but also “set apart for the service of God”; and therefore the criticism that “to keep holy the Sabbath day” is a meaningless injunction as every day should be kept holy, is without merit. The word is derived from the Anglo Saxon and means “whole”; and the divine direction as to the Sabbath is, therefore, simply that the day be observed in its integrity.

holy mackerel: An inane expression commonly used to denote surprise and one to be avoided by all persons with pretentions to refined diction.

hoodoo: A colloquialism designating any person regarded as bringing ill luck, as a “Jonah,” on shipboard, in allusion to the Bible story of the prophet Jonah.

horde: This word means “a gathered multitude of human beings; a troop, gang, or crew; as the hordes of Cambyses.” It is never correctly applied to things. Do not speak of a horde of rubbish.

horse sense: A colloquial phrase designating “rough common sense” used by W. D. Howells in “Hazard of New Fortunes,” vol. i. p. 4.

how? should never be used for “What did you say?” Nor in making a request for the repetition of any statement not heard clearly or not readily understood. Condemned by Oliver Wendell Holmes in “A Rhymed Lesson,” st. 43.

how is an adverb, but it is sometimes most inelegantly used as an interjection and very improperly used as a conjunction, which it is not. On this subject the Standard Dictionary says, “How, as an adverb, may be used as an interrogative or a relative in any of its senses. In old or vulgar usage it is sometimes nearly equivalent to the conjunction that: either (1) alone, as, he told me how he had been left an orphan; or (2) in the phrases how that and as how; as, he told how that he saw it all; he told me as how I angered him.”

however: As an adverb however has proper and elegant use as, “However wise one may be, there are limits to one’s knowledge.” But its use for how and ever as, “However could he do it?” should be avoided as a vulgarism; while its employment in the sense of “at any rate; at all,” as in the example, “He tried to keep me, but I’m going, however,” is provincial and archaic.

As a conjunction it should not be used indiscriminately, as it often is used, for but or notwithstanding. Not “He was sick; not, however, so seriously as he thought,” but “He was sick, but not so seriously,” etc.; since the relation is sharply adversitive. “And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning. Notwithstanding (not but) they harkened not unto Moses”; since the preceding thought is represented as no impediment to the succeeding one. “I have not seen her since our quarrel; however (not but, or notwithstanding), I expect to be recalled every hour”; since the relation is one of concession and simple transition, however denoting that “in whatever manner or degree what precedes is valid, what follows nevertheless stands firm.”—Standard Dictionary.

hung should never be used for hanged. Beef is hung; a murderer is hanged. Compare HANG.

hunk, to get: A vulgar phrase for “to get even” or “to retaliate upon.”

hunky or hunky-dory: Slang terms that should not be used for “all right”; “safe”; or “done satisfactorily.”

hurry. Compare HASTEN.

I

I, and me: “They had come to see my sister and I” is a common error. In this sentence “they” stands in the nominative case, and “my sister and I,” being the objects of the action of the nominative “they,” should be noun and pronoun in the objective case. To be correct the clause should read “my sister and me.” “They have come to see my sister and me.”

ice-cream, ice-water: Common English idioms sometimes condemned as incorrect. The Standard Dictionary recording usage recognizes the forms ice-cream and ice-water as correct. Inasmuch as iced means “made cold with ice; as iced milk or iced tea,” it would seem that by analogy the correct phrases should be iced cream, iced water, for one would not think of asking for ice tea or ice milk, but these idioms are so firmly established that it is doubtful if they will ever be changed.

idea. Compare OPINION.

ie, ei: The rule governing the use of these letters in spelling is commonly expressed “I before E except after C.” Therefore, remember believe is correct, not “beleive”; receive and not “recieve”; brief, and not “breif”; reprieve, not “repreive”; retrieve, not “retreive.”

if, or: Do not say “seldom or ever,” say, rather, “seldom if ever,” or “seldom or never.”

ill: The Standard Dictionary says: The use of ill and sick differs in the two great English-speaking countries. Ill is used in both lands alike, but the preferred sense of sick in England is that of “sick at the stomach, nauseated,” while in the United States the two words are freely interchangeable. Still Tennyson and other good writers freely use sick in the sense of ill. The tendency of modern usage is to remand ill and well (referring to condition of health) to the predicate. We say “A person who is ill,” rather than “An ill person”; “I am well,” but not “I am in a well state of health.” Ill in the abstract sense of bad or wicked is obsolescent, or rather practically obsolete except in poetic or local use. Compare ILLY.

illusion. Compare DELUSION.

illy: This word should never be used for ill since ill is both an adverb and an adjective. Say, “He behaved ill”; not “he behaved illy.” Illy is now obsolescent.

immerge. Compare EMERGE.

immigrant. Compare EMIGRANT.

imminent. Compare EMINENT.

immunity and impunity are sometimes confounded. They are both from the Latin, the former being produced by in, not, + munus, service, and the latter by in + pœna, punishment. Freedom from any burden, or exemption from evil, duty or penalty has perhaps not unnaturally, been associated with freedom from punishment. A boy may insult his brother with impunity but can not expect to enjoy a like immunity from strangers.

impending. Compare EMINENT.

imperative, imperious: Discriminate carefully between these words. That which is imperative may be either mandatory or authoritative; while that which is imperious may be domineering or overbearing.

implicate. Compare INVOLVE.

inaugurate: Phelps declares that this word in the sense of “introduce” is improper and restricts its meaning to “investiture in office.” But lexicographers disregard this distinction and declare that inaugurate may be correctly used to mean also “to set in operation; to initiate; to originate; as to inaugurate reforms.”

“Indeed!” “Is that so?” Discriminate carefully between these terms. “Indeed” expresses surprise. “Is that so?” like “you don’t say?” implies disbelief and calls for the reiteration of the statement made. As these interrogations are used chiefly to discredit or disconcert the speaker they may be characterized as specimens of “refined” rudeness.

indentation, indention: An indentation is a notch in an edge or border; it is also a dent; and indention is a setting of type in such manner as to leave a blank space on the left side of a margin of type-matter as at the beginning of a paragraph.

The printers’ indention is not (as it is often said to be) a shortened form of indentation, but an original word from dent (dint), “a denting in, a depression,” and hence is the proper word, rather than indentation, to express the idea.

indices: A plural form of index, generally and more properly reserved for use in science and mathematics. In other cases the plural indexes should be used.

indict, indite: Although the pronunciation of these words is identical their meanings, in modern practise, differ materially. Both words are from the Latin in + dico, say. The first means to prefer an indictment (or formal written charge of crime) against. The second means “to put into words in writing” but it does not carry with it, the legal signification of the preceding.

induction. Compare DEDUCTION.

inferior: In constant and approved use in such expressions as “an inferior man,” “goods of an inferior sort”; corresponding to such expressions as “a superior man,” “materials of superior quality”—all of which may be regarded as elliptical forms of speech. In reply to Dean Alford’s challenge of this usage (Queen’s English ¶ 214, p. 82), it is enough to say that life would be too short to admit of all such ellipses, being supplied, even if such supply would not make speech too prolix for common use.

inform. Compare POST.

ingenious, ingenuous: Words sometimes used erroneously. Ingenious characterizes persons possessed of cleverness or ability; ready, skilful, prompt, or apt to contrive. Ingenuous means free from guile; candid; open; frank.

in, into: Discriminate carefully between these words. In denotes position, state, etc.; into, tendency, direction, destination, etc.

inkslinger: A vulgar term for a journalist, writer, or literary worker, and as such one to be avoided.

innumerable means “that cannot be numbered.” Therefore, avoid such a locution as “an innumerable number,” as absurd.

in our midst: An undesirable and ambiguous phrase for “among us” due to the misinterpretation of “in the midst of us,” “in the midst of them” (Matt. xviii, 20) but with some literary authority for its use.

in so far as: In this phrase the word in is redundant and meaningless. Do not say, “In so far as I dared, I spoke the truth.” Omit the in.

in spite of: A phrase which some persons declare not synonymous with notwithstanding, yet the Standard Dictionary authorizes its use and says, “formerly in contempt of; now, notwithstanding: used somewhat emphatically.”

intend, mean: The use of intend for mean, as in explanatory sentences, is not commonly approved although it has the sanction of literary usage, and is considered correct by lexicographers who in defining the words treat them as interchangeable. When explaining anything that has been said it is preferable to say, “By this I mean,” rather than “By this I intend.” Do not say “Do you mean to come?” when you wish to know whether or not the person you address intends to come. Compare CONTEMPLATE.

in the street, on the street: Distinctions between these phrases are invariably wiredrawn. Both forms are permissible; the writer’s preference, which may be modified according to circumstances, is for the first. “His home is in Eighty-seventh street” is preferable to “on Eighty-seventh street.” One should not say “his home is on Bermuda,” but “in Bermuda.” “He lives at Hamilton, in Queen street.” Compare ON.

invest: Properly used only of considerable transactions, and always with a suggestion of permanent proprietary right. One does not invest (except in a humorous sense) in a postage-stamp.

invite: Used in the sense of “invitation” this term, a colloquialism formerly in wide use, is condemned as illiterate and bordering on vulgarity.

involve is to be distinguished from implicate. The latter has a suggestion of wrong-doing or crime, whereas the former contains no such implication.

irritate. Compare AGGRAVATE.

irruption. Compare ERUPTION.

I seen him: Vulgar and incorrect; say “I have seen him” or “I saw him.”

Is that so? One of a class of vulgar phrases of which other examples are “You don’t say”; “Don’t you know”; “You know”; “Well I never,” commonly used but all of which should be avoided as ill-bred and undesirable locutions.

is, are: The correct use of these words depends in a measure on the intention of the writer or speaker. Therefore, the choice of a singular or plural verb in cases where either form would be proper is often influenced by the writer’s way of looking at the subject. “The purpose and conception of the scheme is to do good.” Now the mistake with this sentence is that either “purpose and conception” represent a single idea (in which case they may, in combination, take a singular verb), or they do not (in which case they require a plural verb), and that in the former case, where the nouns express a similarity of sentiment, one of the words is superfluously used. “Jones and Smith is solvent”: yes, as a firm, though as individuals they are solvent.

it: Used sometimes in such manner as to violate the principles of grammatical and rhetorical construction, as when referring to any one of several words or clauses preceding, or perhaps to some idea merely implied or hinted at in what has gone before, as in the following: “A statute inflicting death may, and ought to be, repealed, if it be in any degree expedient, without its being highly so.” In this sentence “if it be” should be replaced by “if such repeal be,” and “its” should be omitted.

In general, personal and relative pronouns with ambiguous reference to preceding words or clauses in the sentence are stumbling-blocks of inexperienced or careless writers.

ivories: A slang term used to designate the keys of a piano; hence, the phrase, tickle the ivories, a coarse way of expressing ability to play the piano.

J

jag: Formerly a provincialism for “a load of hay”; now a euphemism for “drunk”; but as such a term to be avoided in polite society.

jar: Used in the phrase “Doesn’t (or wouldn’t) it jar you” is an erroneous use of the word jar in vogue among persons addicted to using the vulgarisms of the street. To jar is “to cause to shake as by a shock or blow; to jolt”; not, to disconcert or discompose.

jaw should not be used as a synonym for “mouth” or “talk.” Such expressions as “Hold your jaw”; “Shut your jaw,” and “What are you jawing about?” have no place in the vocabulary of persons of refinement.

Jew, Hebrew, Israelite: These terms are sometimes incorrectly used as synonyms. Hebrew is the ethnological and linguistic name, Israelite the national name, and Jew the popular name of the people; as, “The Egyptians oppressed the Hebrews”; “David was the typical king of the Israelites”; “The Jews revolted under the Maccabees.” The three names have their special application to the people in the premonarchical period (Hebrew), in the monarchical period (Israelite), and in the period subsequent to the return from the Babylonian captivity (Jew).

jewels, jewelry: Words, sometimes, but mistakenly, used interchangeably. Jewels forming the stock in trade of a jeweler are termed collectively jewelry; the articles of adornment, as gems and precious stones, worn by a lady are her jewels.

jiggered, to be: A form of minced oath sometimes used as an equivalent for “to be hanged”; as, “I’ll be jiggered if I do”: an inelegant form of oath common among Englishmen.

join issue: Not to be confounded with to take issue. To take issue means “to deny”; to join issue, in strict usage, “to admit the right of denial,” but not also “to agree in the truth of the denial.” In the example “In their career father and son meet, join issue, and pursue their nefarious occupation in conjunction,” join issue is improperly used for “agree” or “come to an agreement.” To join issue is properly “to take opposite sides of a case,” etc.

jollier: A slang term used to designate a person who treats another (from whom he expects a favor, or with whom he desires cordial relations) pleasantly and good-humoredly, or in an agreeable way so as to obtain his end. In its English sense a jollier is one given to chaffing and joking at another’s expense.

jolly. Compare NICE.

jolly, to: The occupation of a jollier: slang of widespread usage. Compare JOLLIER.

josh: A vulgarism for “chaff,” “hoax,” or “banter,” which are more refined terms.

journal: From the French, properly means daily. Therefore to speak of a “daily journal” is absurd. Say, rather, “daily paper.” Likewise avoid “weekly journal,” “monthly journal,” “quarterly journal” which mean weekly daily, monthly daily, quarterly daily, and are forms of expression in popular use as examples of violent catachresis. Say, rather, “daily newspaper,” “weekly newspaper,” “monthly” or “quarterly magazine” or “review,” or simply “monthly” or “quarterly.”

jump at or to: To embrace eagerly, as an offer or opportunity. In this sense never “jump to,” but one may jump to the floor, as from a chair.

just going to. Compare GOING.

K

kettle of fish, pretty: A colloquial phrase for “a perplexing state of affairs,” or “a muddle,” both of which are preferable expressions.

key, quay: Exercise care in the use of these words. A key is that with which something is opened or disclosed; also, a small low-lying island; a quay is a wharf or landing place where ships discharge passengers or cargo. These words are pronounced alike. Compare DOCK.

kibosh: A slang term for “humbug.” To put the kibosh on, a slang phrase for “to put an end to or stop anything.”

kick is not used instead of “protest” by careful speakers, notwithstanding the fact that George Eliot introduced it into literature (see Silas Marner, ch. iv. p. 52). The term is slang.

kid: A common vulgarism for “child” and as such one the use of which can not be too severely condemned.

kid on: A vulgarism used in England for “humbug; hoax; or, try to induce one to believe something that is not true:”—no kid, no kidding: Vulgar terms for “without any humbug.” Undesirable locutions.

killing. Compare PERFECTLY.

kinder: For kind of, pronounced as one word, is merely a low vulgarism. The same remark holds of sorter similarly used for “sort of.” See KIND OF.

kindness: When used in the plural is sometimes objected to on the ground that kindness is an abstract noun. “He wishes to express gratitude for many kindnesses.” Nothing is commoner than the making of abstract nouns into concrete in this way; “affinities”; “charities”; “His tender mercies are over all His works.” Besides, by “many kindnesses” is meant, not “much kindness,” nor “great kindness,” but “kindness manifested in many forms or shown on many occasions, many acts of kindness.”

kind of is an American provincialism for somewhat and has no literary authorization. “I am somewhat tired” should be substituted for “I am kind of tired.” Again, after kind of do not use the indefinite article. “What kind of man” is preferable to “what kind of a man.”

kinsman. Compare RELATION.

knife, to: This term should not be used as a substitute for “stab” or “defeat.” Although widely used by politicians in the United States the term has no justification outside of ward politics.

knock, to: Slang for “to harass or find fault with continually;” a similar and more recent word used also in this sense is hammer. Both should be avoided.

L

lady: The use of this word as “a mere distinction of sex is a sheer vulgarism.” Never say “A man and his lady,” but “a man and his wife,” or preferably, by name, “Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.” Where woman, as indicative of sex, is intended, say woman—not lady or female. A female is equally female, whether person or beast. In the United States “woman” is preferable; in England “lady” is used chiefly when the term is not preceded by a qualifying adjective. The word woman best expresses the relation of the female sex to the human race. Some ill-informed persons use lady for woman under the mistaken idea that woman is a derogatory term; such use is downright vulgarity. As one never hears salesgentleman but salesman, therefore saleslady should be avoided; say, rather, saleswoman.

last two. Compare FIRST and TWO FIRST.

lay, lie: In discriminating the uses of these words the Standard Dictionary says: Lay, vt., “to put down,” “to cause to lie down,” is a causal derivative of lie, vi., “to rest.” The principal parts of the two verbs are: