Sheeny: An offensive appellative for a Jew used only by the illiterate and vulgar.

shire: As this word means county, do not say “county” when speaking of any “shire.” “Oxfordshire” and “the county of Oxford,” are correct, but not “the county of Oxfordshire.”

shoal: In general this word is applied to an assemblage, a multitude or a throng, but, specifically it designates a number of fish that move together; as, “a shoal of porpoises.” Compare SCHOOL.

should seem, would seem: Terms used chiefly to soften requests, orders or directions. The use of should in such a remark as “It should seem so”—implying that something suggested was correct—dates from pre-Elizabethan time. Here would should be substituted for should.

should, would: These words follow in the main the usage of shall and will, but with certain modifications required by their common use in dependent sentences. In general, in indirect quotation, should is to be used after a historical tense where the speaker quoted employed shall, and would where the speaker quoted will. Thus:

{ Direct quotation: “He said to me,’You shall go.’”
{ Indirect   „      “He said that I should go.”

{ Direct     „      “He said to me, ‘Will you go?’”
{ Indirect   „      “He asked me if I would go.”

The mixture of direct and indirect is always wrong; avoid, “He asked me would I go.”

shut up: A coarse expression often too commonly used instead of “keep quiet.” Compare FORGET IT.

sideways should not be used for sidewise.

siege, seige: Discriminate carefully between these words. A siege is an investment as of a city by military forces; as, “the siege of Paris”; a seige is a flock of birds; as, “a seige of cranes.” Note especially the orthography of these words.

sieve, seive: Homophones of widely different meaning. A sieve is a utensil for sifting; a seive is a rush or rush-wick.

sight: As a colloquialism meaning a very great quantity, number, or amount; as, “a sight of people,” the noun is to be avoided, as in the still more objectionable expression, “powerful sight,” in which the adjective is altogether misapplied.

similar. Compare SAME.

sin. Compare CRIME.

since, ago: Since is used generally to imply time only recently lapsed; ago, to imply time long past. “How long since did he call?” “Nelson fought Trafalgar a century ago.”

site. Compare CITE.

skidoo: Recent slang for “get out” which is to be preferred.

skin, to: A vulgarism for “to deprive by extortion or trickery; get the better of,” either of which is preferable.

skunk: As applied to a person of mean disposition or of objectionable character the term is to be condemned as unsuited to polite society no matter how fittingly it may apply to the individual designated by it.

slob: A vulgar equivalent for “a careless, negligent and incompetent person,” and as such one to be avoided.

so. Compare SUCH.

soap: A vulgar euphemism for “wealth”; used usually interrogatively as, “How’s he off for soap?” A vulgarism for “How rich is he?” which is to be preferred.

so far as. Compare AS FAR AS.

sojourn: This term formerly obsolete has recently been revived as meaning to “have a residence, definite though temporary, in some place that is not one’s home.” Sojourn is better than stop, which may imply merely cessation of motion and does not express even temporary residence; more specific than stay, which may apply to a delay of an hour between trains or the passing of a night.

someone else, somebody else. See under ELSE.

some place. Compare ANY PLACE.

somewhat. Compare KIND OF and LIKE.

soppy: A vulgarism for “emotional”: expressive but inelegant.

sorry, grieved: Distinguish between these words in their use. If we are sorry, it is for a matter concerning ourselves; but when we are grieved, another is in some way connected with the case.

sort of. Compare KIND OF.

sparrow grass sometimes abbreviated grass are common corruptions in domestic use for asparagus. There is no excuse but lack of education or lack of intelligence and courage to use the right word when the majority prefer the wrong for this vulgar provincialism.

spectator. Compare AUDIENCE.

spell should not be used for “period of time.” Do not say “I shall stay a spell” if you mean you will “remain a little while,” the latter is to be preferred.

splendid: Often used indiscriminately and inanely especially by women; as in the expression “perfectly splendid,” to express very great excellence. Splendid means imposing; as, “a splendid woman”; shedding brilliant light or shining brightly; as, “a splendid sun”; “a splendid diamond.” A heroic deed may be called splendid but a good story hardly so.

split or cleft infinitive: A form of expression in which the sign of the infinitive “to” and its verb are separated by some intervening word, usually an adverb, as in the phrase, “to quickly return”: severely condemned by purists.

spoonfuls, spoons full: These words have distinctive meanings. Spoonfuls means one spoon filled repeatedly; spoons full means several spoons filled once. Compare -FUL.

spout, up the: A vulgarism for “with the pawnbroker,” or “out of sight.”

spree, to go on a: Formerly this phrase designated indulgence in boisterous frolic and excess of drink: latterly the term has been used to denote “going on an outing for the day.”

square, on the: A colloquialism for “with fair intention or with reputation for fair dealing; honest.”

stationary, stationery: Exercise care in the use of these words. Stationary is remaining in one place or position; stationery, writing-materials in general. These words are pronounced alike.

statue, statute: These words are sometimes confounded; a statue is a plastic representation of a human or animal figure as in marble or bronze. A statute is a properly authenticated legislative enactment, especially one passed by a body of representatives.

stay and stop: Stay is sometimes used incorrectly for stop; do not say “I shall stay in Paris on my way to Berlin,” but “I shall stop in Paris” etc. Do not say “How long will you stop there?” but “How long will you stay?” etc. Compare SOJOURN and STOP.

step. See STOP.

stiff is used for a “corpse” only by the very lowest type of humanity.

stile, style: Exercise care in spelling these words. A stile is a step or series of steps on each side of a fence or wall, to aid in surmounting it; style is fashion.

stimulant, stimulus: The first of these words denotes that which stimulates the system, as coffee does the action of the heart. A stimulus is that which impels or urges on; as, “a stimulus to hard work is offered by the pecuniary reward it yields.”

stinker: A coarse term applied to an undesirable acquaintance only by the vulgar. It is a term that unfortunately has some vogue in commercial life.

stop: The word is frequently misused, both for step and stay. “Stop in next time you pass” or “stop off on your way down by car” are colloquial but objectionable expressions. The latter clearly means “step off and call in” and would be met by a simple “call in.” Stop implies finality, and should therefore never be used in the sense of a temporary stay. The true meaning of the word stop was well understood by the man who did not invite his professed friend to visit him: “If you come at any time within ten miles of my house, just stop.”—Mathews, Words, Their Use and Abuse, ch. xiv. p. 359.

straight, strait: Exercise care in spelling these words. That which is straight lies evenly between any two of its points or passes from one point to another by direct course; not curved. A strait is a narrow channel connecting two seas. In the plural, strait denotes a difficult or restricted condition; distress or perplexity.

street: According to law, land includes all above and all below. Thus a house on the land or a gold mine beneath is covered by the word land, and its possessor is entitled to both one and the other. In the same way a street includes the houses there built; and it is therefore not strictly correct to speak of a certain house as being on a certain street: it is in the street and is part of it. Compare ON.

stricken: As a past participle of strike, archaic in England, except when there is an implication in it of misfortune; as, “He was stricken with paralysis.” In the United States stricken, in general application, is not so distinctly archaic, and its use in reference to the erasure of words is very frequent; as, “It is ordered that the words objected to be stricken out.” In the best literary usage of both countries struck is preferred to stricken when no implication of misfortune is conveyed in it. Stricken is the appropriate participial adjective; as, “a stricken man”; “a stricken deer.”—Standard Dictionary.

string, to get on a: A harmless but inelegant equivalent for “to hoax,” which is to be preferred.

subtile, subtle: “Subtile and subtle have been constantly used as interchangeable by good writers but there seems to be a present tendency to distinguish them by making subtile an attribute of things and subtle a characteristic of mind.” A penetrating perfume is described as subtile, whereas a wily sage’s predominating characteristic is subtlety.

succeed should not be used now in the archaic sense of “to make successful, promote”; as, “to succeed an enterprise.”

succeed himself: An absurd phrase. A person who takes the place of a predecessor succeeds him; one who has occupied a public office for a term prescribed by law and is reelected to that office succeeds his own previous term of office but not himself.

such: This word is often erroneously used for “so.” Do not say “I never saw such a high building”; say, rather, “... so high, a building.”

such another. Compare ANOTHER SUCH.

sucker for “sponger” or “parasite” is slang of the lowest type and should be avoided by all persons of refinement.

summons: You summon a person to court upon a summons. There is properly no such verb as summons, the colloquial use of the term being altogether unjustifiable.

superior. Compare INFERIOR.

sure: Often misused for “surely” in the sense of “certainly.” Do not say “Sure I’m going”; say, rather, “I’m surely going.”

surprise. Compare ASTONISH.

sympathize with, sympathy for: The verb sympathize takes only with; the noun sympathy in its secondary sense of “commiseration,” is often properly followed by for. We have sympathy with one’s aspirations, for his distress; the sound man has sympathy for the wounded; the wounded man has sympathy with his fellow sufferers.

sympathy. Compare PITY.

T

take: Often incorrectly used for have, especially in extending hospitality, in such a sentence as “What will you take?”

take on for grieve, scold, etc., like carry on for behave sportively may both be tolerated as colloquialisms that are popular because of their irrationality, or because they require no discrimination in statement.

takes the cake. See CAKE.

take up school: An objectionable local Americanism for begin school: used also intransitively; as, “School took up at 9 o’clock”: avoid this.

talent should not be used for “talents” or “ability.”

talented: Inasmuch as adjectives of the participial form are justified by strict grammarians only if derived from an existing verb, this word has been caviled at by Coleridge (who denounced it as “that vile and barbarous vocable”) and many literary pedants. Burke, Hazlitt, Lamb, De Quincey, Macaulay and Newman have however, spoken of “a talented man”; and in the face of this array of learning and authority we can raise but a modest protest in favor of the contention of the grammarians. Such formations are, however, not to be indiscriminately recommended.

talk, back. Compare BACK TALK.

tasty in the sense of tasteful is without authority and is considered an illiterate use. A person or his work may be tasteful, but his food, however savory, can be no more than tasty.

team: Strictly a team consists of two or more beasts of burden harnessed together, but in the United States the word is extended to cover “team and accessories,” the latter being the harness or equipment, together with the vehicle to which the animals are attached.

tell on: A common expression with children used in the sense of “to inform against a person,” is derived from Biblical use (I Sam. xxvii. 11). The phrase lost to literary English has now no equivalent.

temper, anger, wrath: Words in the use of which discrimination should be used. Temper is disposition or constitution of the mind, especially in relation to the affections or the passions; anger is violence or vindicated passion aroused by real or imaginary insult or injury. One may have an irritable temper without being necessarily angry. Wrath is deep, determined, and lasting anger, usually accompanied by outward expression of displeasure. Anger may be only inward feeling without the outward expression of passion.

testimony. Compare EVIDENCE.

than as a conjunction should be used only in the case of direct comparison; as, “I esteem this more than that.” When the comparison is merely implied, or covered by the verb, as by the verb prefer, than should not be used. See PREFER.

thanks has been condemned as an undignified colloquialism bordering on incivility; but what serious objection is there to this pithy acknowledgment of obligation or gratitude? It has been said that Shakespeare made use of the expression no fewer than fifty-five times, and that the Bible four times contains the utterance “thanks be to God,” Shakespeare’s use of the word with “much” as an adjective is indeed most forcible—“for this relief much thanks.”

than me should never be used for than I. Say, “He is taller than I”; not “He is taller than me.”

than whom: A phrase objected to by some grammatical critics, in such locutions as “Cromwell, than whom no man was better skilled in artifice”; but shown to be “a quite classic expression.” Formerly than was often but not always used as a preposition, and than whom is probably a survival of such usage. “Than whom” is generally accepted as permissible—probably because the sentence where it occurs can not be mended without reconstruction, and it has abundant literary authority.

that: In construing this word, it must be recollected that it is not only a conjunction but also a pronoun, both demonstrative and relative. The peculiarity of the word is such that it can be used more times in succession than any other word in the English language. Exception having been taken to a certain “that” found in a school-boy’s exercise, it was shown that that that that that boy used was right. Dean Alford constructed a sentence on these lines which contained no fewer than nine thats in succession.

That used adverbially is wholly inexcusable. “He was that sick” could only be tolerated if an ellipsis such as “he was (to) that (degree) sick,” could be supposed, but this is more than can be done; and the expression is therefore regarded as an unpardonable vulgarism. Compare AS, THAT (p. 22).

that there: An illiterate expression commonly used with the mistaken idea that the use of “there” adds emphasis to what follows, as, “That there man.” Say, rather, “That man there” or simply, and preferably “That man.”

that, who: Discriminate carefully between these words. That implies restriction; who generally denotes coordination. As an illustration of this distinction, Alfred Ayres says (“The Verbalist,” p. 202), “‘I met the boatman who took me across the ferry.’ If who is the proper word here, the meaning is ‘I met the boatman, and he took me across the ferry,’ 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.” That ought, therefore, to be preferred to who or which whenever an antecedent not otherwise limited is to be restricted by the relative clause.

the: Before titles of honor, such as Reverend, Honorable, the definite article (though now frequently omitted) should be used. As the title is specific and personal, this is the more necessary.

the infinitive: The particle to is an inherent and component part of the infinitive, and is strictly inseparable therefrom, in precisely the same way that the prefixed syllable which assists to form a compound word (as inconstant) is a necessary part of the compound. But this to belongs to the present infinitive only, and properly finds no place in such expressions as “He was fool enough to have risked his good name.” Despite the hundreds of uses of this method of expression, it is a blunder: the sentence should read “fool enough to risk.” It is, too, on the ground of inseparability that the SPLIT INFINITIVE (which see) is so reprehensible. “To dance gracefully” should not be transposed into “to gracefully dance.”

them: The use of this word as a demonstrative adjective for a pronoun is wholly unpermissible. A common error due to a desire to designate particularly the article required. Do not say “Give me them things”; say, rather, “... those things.” However, of things previously mentioned one may say “Give them to me.”

then: The use of this word as an adjective, as in the phrase “the then Bishop of York,” has been questioned; but the usage is expressive and convenient, and is supported by good literary authority.

thence, whence: As these words mean “from there,” “from where,” they should not be preceded by the word from as is often erroneously done.

think, don’t. See DON’T BELIEVE.

this or that much: Not elegant perhaps, but still correct or at least passable. A careful speaker would prefer to say “this much,” because much being an adjective of quality requires, for its elucidation, not a pronoun but an adverb. It is true that in the expression “this” or “that much,” the word “much” could generally, if not always, be omitted without affecting the correctness of the sentence wherein it is used; still the sense would not be precisely the same. “This much I know” denotes a limitation in the extent of knowledge which is not restricted by “this I know.”

threatening. Compare EMINENT.

three first, the: Incorrect for the first three: one may, however, correctly use three first if referring to a race, or the like, in which three of the competitors run a dead heat. Compare TWO FIRST.

through: An undesirable colloquialism for “at an end”; “finished”; generally applied to speakers who have completed an address, or to diners who have finished a meal. Both applications are marks of ill-breeding and border on vulgarity.

tickled to death: An absurd phrase used to express “greatly pleased.”

till: In some parts of the United States oddly misused for by; as, “I’ll be there till [by] ten o’clock.”

time: Avoid such an incongruity as “Heaps of time.” “Plenty of time,” or “time enough” are to be preferred.

timely. Compare SEASONABLE.

tinker’s dam: A colloquialism for something worthless, used usually in the phrase “Not worth a tinker’s dam.” Avoided in polite society.

tiny little: The use of words as mere intensives should be avoided, for by judicious selection a single word can probably be found which is capable of conveying the precise sense desired. To speak of a “tiny little watch” or “a great big house,” indicates a deplorable poverty of vocabulary. It is true that Shakespeare spoke of “the most unkindest cut of all”; but he made use of intensives only when the unusual circumstances of the case required them.

tired, to make one: A colloquialism for “to weary,” or “reduce the patience of” as by absurd stories or silly conversation: a commonplace expression good to avoid.

to: Beware of using the preposition to when at is intended. A common error of this sort is instanced by “He was to school this morning.” Possibly the error is made rather in the verb than the preposition, though the influencing cause of error in the uneducated does not always admit of certainty. We suggest, therefore, that the verb “to be” is used unintentionally for “to go,” and that the sentence is perhaps intended to read “he went to school this morning.” Compare AND; FOR.

togged out or up: An undesirable and vulgar expression for “well-dressed” or “attired in clothes that may attract attention.”

to-morrow: This word is often used with different tenses, the question being raised as to whether it should be “to-morrow is Christmas day” or “to-morrow will be Christmas day.” Both forms are correct. But, generally, in using this word, the supposition is that to-morrow has not arrived at the time of speaking, and, therefore, “to-morrow will be Christmas day” is preferred. Longfellow (Keramos, line 331) says: “To-morrow will be another day.” But the other form also has the sanction of usage, as the following quotations will show:

The Bible affords numerous instances of this use of “is.” Ex. xvi. 23: “The Lord hath said, to-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord”; xxxii. 5: “And Aaron made proclamation and said, to-morrow is a feast to the Lord”; I Sam. xx. 5: “Behold to-morrow is the new moon”; Matt. vi. 30: “If God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven.”

Most people would say “Yesterday was Friday.” If the thought is fixed upon the name of the day, it is better to use is, if upon the time future it is better to use will be.

toney: A vulgarism for “fancy” or “stylish,” either of which is a preferable term.

touch, to: A slang term for “to borrow” not used by persons careful of their diction. Do not say “I touched him for a ten-spot”; say rather, “I borrowed ten dollars from him.”

transpire is condemned by the best writers in the sense of happen. “The verb transpire formerly conveyed very expressively its correct meaning, viz., to become known through unnoticed channels—to exhale, as it were, into publicity through invisible pores, like a vapor or gas disengaging itself. But of late, a practise has commenced of employing the word ... as a mere synonym to to happen.... This vile specimen of bad English is already seen in the dispatches of noblemen and viceroys.”—Mill, Logic, bk. iv. ch. 5, p. 483.

truth. Compare VERACITY.

try: This word is often erroneously used for “make.” Do not say “Try the experiment yourself” but “Make the experiment.” An experiment can only be tried, as a speech (in its literal, that is verbal, sense) can only be spoken.

try and: A common but incorrect locution. Do not say “Try and come to-day,” but, rather, “Try to come to-day.”

tumble to: Slang for “to understand.” Do not say “Do you tumble to it?” Say, rather, “Do you understand it?”

turn down: Undesirable, though perhaps expressive slang for “reject”; “ignore”; or “dismiss.” In commercial circles, this expression has wide usage but is not the less inelegant and should be avoided. A proposition is quite as fully disposed of when it is “rejected” as when it is “turned down;” besides, “rejected” should be given preference if only by reason of its brevity.

turn up: Used in the sense of to “put in an appearance” this expression has been condemned. The remark of a barrister in a London County Court that a defendant had “not turned up” caused the Judge to exclaim: “Pray do not use such slip-shod expressions.” The barrister apologized. “These are high-pressure days,” he said, “and since your Honor’s days at the bar we have no longer time to indulge in perfect English.”

twenty-three: A slang term used as the equivalent of “fade away” in theatrical and sporting circles: a recent expression the origin of which has been variously explained. Compare FADE AWAY.

two. Compare COUPLE.

two and two is (or are) four: As an abstract proposition or statement, is is undoubtedly correct; for four is two added to two, or twice two; but when two specific things are added to two others, the verb must be in the plural. In the former case we are saying that a certain single and definite result is attained or total given by the combination of two numbers; in the latter we say that in a given body or number of things are so many single or individual things. Two men and two are undoubtedly four; that is, four men are (constituted of) two and two. Beyond doubt, twice one is two; for it can not be that two (as a single and specific number) are twice one.

two first: Of this expression James Murdock says: “The only argument against the use of two first, and in favor of substituting first two, so far as I can recollect, is this: In the nature of things, there can be only one first and one last, in any series of things. But—is it true that there can never be more than one first and one last? If it be so, then the adjective first and last must always be of the singular number, and can never agree with nouns in the plural. We are told that the first years of a lawyer’s practise are seldom very lucrative. The poet tells us that his first essays were severely handled by the critics, but his last efforts have been well received. Examples like these might be produced without number. They occur everywhere in all our standard writers.... When a numeral adjective and a qualifying epithet both refer to the same noun, the general rule of the English language is to place the numeral first, then the qualifying epithet, and afterwards the noun. Thus we say, ‘The two wise men,’ ‘the two tall men’; and not ‘the wise two men’ ‘the tall two men.’ And the same rule holds in superlatives. We say ‘the two wisest men,’ ‘the two tallest men’ and not ‘the wisest two men,’ ‘the tallest two men.’ Now if this be admitted to be the general rule of the English language, it then follows that we should generally say ‘the two first,’ ‘the two last,’ etc., rather than ‘the first two,’ ‘the last two,’ etc. This, I say, should generally be the order of the words. Yet there are some cases in which it seems preferable to say, ‘the first two,’ ‘the first three,’ etc.” Compare FIRST.

U

ugly, which signifies the reverse of beautiful or want of comeliness (actual or figurative) is colloquially extended in the United States to uncomeliness of character or personal demeanor; as an ugly fellow; an ugly beast; anger makes him ugly. In polite speech this usage is not sanctioned. Say “irritable,” “vicious,” “quarrelsome,” as the disposition inclines or indicates.

un-: For the sake of lucidity the use of a negative prefix with a negative antecedent should be discouraged. Avoid such expressions as “He spoke in no unmistakable terms” which means, of course, “mistakable terms” the direct opposite of the speaker’s intention. “Not an unkempt one among them” means that all were well kempt.

unbeknown: A vulgar provincialism used chiefly in the form unbeknownst.

uncommon: Used for uncommonly: a vulgarism meaning “to an unusual degree or extremely.” Do not say “Her eyes are uncommon beautiful”; say, rather, “... uncommonly beautiful.”

unconscionable: When used for unconscionably is a bad provincialism. Used also by the illiterate instead of uncommonly; as, “She is an unconscionable handsome girl”—this is bad English.

under: Much philological nonsense has been written in disapproval of the expression “under his signature,” for which “over his signature”—that “preposterous conceit,” as Gould aptly terms it—is suggested as a substitute. But it is clear that the expression is elliptical, and means “under sanction or authority of his signature.” “Under oath” is good enough to impress upon an unwilling and prevaricating witness the distinction between perjury and a lie, and that although he does not physically lie under the oath.

understand should not be used as an expletive with interrogatory inflection, as a contraction of “Do you understand?” There is no excuse for this nor for its objectionable iteration. Avoid such absurdities as: “Grammar, understand, is the science that treats of the principles, understand, that govern the correct use of language,” etc. See is also misused in the same manner.

unique: As this word implies “being the only one of its kind” it should never be preceded by “very” which implies degree. On this subject the Standard Dictionary says: “We may say quite unique if we mean absolutely singular or without parallel but we can not properly say very unique.”

United States: Under this designation the several states comprising the American Union are known collectively as one great nation. As such the expression is singular and accordingly is correctly followed by a verb in the singular.

universally by all: A common error. Where anything is done universally, it must be done by all, and these words being redundant should be omitted.

unless. See WITHOUT.

unwell, owing to its common euphemistic application, should not be used for “ill.”

up: In general the word up, used in such a phrase as “Open up” or “He opened up his sermon with a parable” is redundant and should be omitted. Compare OPEN.

up against it: A colloquial expression used as the equivalent of “face to face with” some condition or thing, usually of a discouraging or disastrous character. Though common in commercial circles it is an expression that it is best to avoid.

upon: Often used for on in such phrases as “call upon,” whether meaning visit or summon and “speak (or write) upon.” The reasonable tendency now is to use the simpler on whenever the idea of superposition is not involved.

usage. Compare HABIT.

use: This word is used in all sorts of incorrect and inelegant ways; yet the conjugation of the verb is positive and very simple—use; used; using. There appears to be no difficulty in applying it affirmatively but when used in a negative form one often hears such uncouth expressions as “You didn’t use to,” “you hadn’t used to” instead of “You used not to,” etc. It need scarcely be said that these expressions are vulgarisms of the worst type. “I usedn’t to” is not pretty, but is less formal than “I used not to,” and can not be objected to on grammatical grounds.

usually. Compare COMMONLY.

utter as a verb should be distinguished from say, as articulate expression is differentiated from written. To utter, save in the legal sense, is to emit audibly. Adjectively the word can be used only in an unfavorable sense for “complete.” Utter discord there may be, but not utter harmony; utter silence, but not utter speech.

V

vain, vein: Words of similar pronunciation whose spelling is sometimes confused by the careless. Vein is the Latin vena, blood-vessel, from veho, carry, and is therefore totally distinct from vain, which is from the Latin vanus, empty.

valuable is occasionally misused for valued. Valuable is said correctly only of things that have monetary value or derive worth as from their character or quality. One may have valued friends and valuable art-treasures, but not valuable friends nor valued art-treasures.

venal, venial: Discriminate carefully between these words. One who is venal is ready to sell his influence or efforts for some consideration from sordid motives; he is mercenary. But one who is venial has committed only a slight or trivial fault. A man who has sold his vote for preferment is a venal politician; a starving man who has stolen a loaf of bread for his family has been guilty of a venial offense.

ventilate should not be used for “expose” or “explain.”

veracity, truth: Do not confound these words. Truth is applied to persons and facts; veracity only to persons and to statements made by them. One should not speak of the veracity of anything that has occurred. A man of integrity may have a reputation for veracity; if so, there is no doubt that he told the truth or that the account he gave was true.

verbal nouns, especially such as could be replaced by a noun pure and simple, etymologically coordinate, should be preceded by a possessive in sentences of this character: “The cause of Henry (’s) dying was appendicitis.” Dying is here equivalent to death; and we should (if we substituted the pronoun) certainly say “the cause of his dying” rather than “the cause of him dying.”

verse: The chief meaning of this word is a single line of poetry; sometimes it is used as a synonym for stanza. Some grammarians advocate the use of verse instead of stanza, and the familiar character of the word seems to argue in favor of this use.

very: Excepting where a participle is used solely as an adjective, it is now thought to be more grammatical to interpose an adverb between the participle and this word. Thus, “very greatly dissatisfied” is preferred to “very dissatisfied,” whereas “very tired” is accepted as correct. Compare REAL.

vest: In the sense of waistcoat, this word, which is in better usage a synonym for undervest, is not used by precise speakers.

vice. Compare CRIME.

vicinity should not be used for “neighborhood.”

visit: A term sometimes misused. Do not say “The actor has just visited, with much abuse, the head of the critic,” when you mean that he abused him roundly. This is an erroneous application of the word, which is confounded with the Scriptural usage “to send judgment from heaven upon” as punishment.

vocation. Compare AVOCATION.

W

wa’n’t: A contraction of was not, or improperly of were not; as, “He wa’n’t (or they wa’n’t) at home”: a common vulgarism.

want and need are not synonymous terms, although both denote a lack. Want, however, refers more properly to a personal conception of shortcoming or shortage, whereas need denotes the matter of fact. Thus a delinquent son may need castigation, while he distinctly does not want it. Want, therefore, signifies a wish to supply what is lacking. But the word want is sometimes less strong than need, for a covetous man wants (i. e., desires) many things he does not need (or things for which he has an absolute necessity). “I need assistance or I shall drown.” Again, “I want a position, but do not need it, because I can continue as I am without it; but when resources fail I shall need it.”

want of: An undesirable colloquialism. Do not say “What does he want of a yacht?” say, rather. want with, or “What need has he of a yacht?”

warm: A slang term used for “rich,” formerly in vogue in England.

warm, not so: A vulgar phrase applied to persons and meaning usually “not as important” or “not as accurate” as the person to whom the epithet is applied may think himself to be.

was, is: These terms are sometimes confused, especially in dependent sentences that state unchanging facts. Then the present tense should be used in the dependent sentence notwithstanding the fact that the principal verb may denote action in the past. Say, “He said that space is (not was) infinite”; “We assert that life is everlasting.”

watch, observe: These words have a similarity of meaning, but watch expresses a scrutiny or close observation which is not implied by the latter. You observe a preacher’s manner but carefully watch a thief. When you observe intently and concentrate your entire thoughts upon the thing observed you watch. You observe the hour of day but watch the time lest you lose your train.

way or ’way, as an abbreviation of the adverb away, as “’way out West,” is an impropriety of speech. Say, rather, “He has gone (or is in the) West.”

ways, for way: In the sense of “space or distance,” the erroneous form ways, for way, is often used colloquially, perhaps originally through confusion with the suffix -ways; as, “The church is a long ways from here,” which should be “The church is a long way,” etc.

weary. Compare TIRED.

weather, under the: In the sense of “somewhat ill,” as though depressed by the weather, this is a colloquialism better avoided.

went: This word should never be used as a participle; say, “He went” or “he has gone” instead of “he has went.” Never use went after any part of the verb have. Do not say “I have went there often”; but “I have been there often.” Went should never be used for go. Some illiterate people say “I should have went” when they mean “I should have gone.”

wharf: E. S. Gould declares that as dwarves would be an improper plural for dwarf, so is wharves for wharf. However, both forms are now admitted. Compare DOCK.

what: As what is both antecedent and relative the use of the antecedent with this word is wrong. “All what he said was false” should be corrected by the elision of “all.” What is used only in reference to things, whereas that can be said of persons, animals, and things, and can be substituted for it.

what was, what was not: “What was” and “what wasn’t my surprise” may both be used correctly to express considerable surprise, and with almost the same meaning, the one expression differing from the other but by a shade in sense. “How great was my surprise,” and “What surprise could equal or be greater, than mine,” would about paraphrase the usages. The former sentence implies great surprise, but the possibility (though unreferred to) of a greater; the latter indicates that there could not be any greater surprise.

wheels in the (or his) head, to have: A slang phrase used as a substitute for “to be eccentric, peculiar, or erratic.”

whence: “Whence came you” is sufficient and correct. “From whence” is pleonastic, the whence being nothing less than “from where” and thus including the from. Compare THENCE.

where: The prepositions to or at should never end a sentence beginning with where. Such use is vulgar and illiterate. Avoid: “Where has he gone to?” “Where was I at?”

whereabouts: This word, plural in form, but singular in construction, always takes a verb, in the singular. “Husband and wife disappeared; their whereabouts is a mystery.”

wherever: This word, although a combination of two words “where” and “ever” is not spelt “where ever” when written as a solid word. Then it drops the first “e” in “ever” and is correctly “wherever.”

whether: Avoid such a locution as “whether or no,” which is rapidly gaining ground, and say instead the preferable phrase, “whether or not.” Whether properly means “which of two.” Therefore, in expressing doubt, make mention merely of the exact thing doubted without using the word whether unless it be to introduce an alternative subject of doubt or a comparison of doubts. Just as either, which is strictly applicable to two only is wrongly applied to more than two, so is whether, which is a contraction of which of either.

which. Compare THAT, WHO.

who: Often improperly used for whom: a mark of ignorance when so applied. Do not say “Who do you refer to?” but “To whom do you refer?” Not “Who is that for?” nor “Who did you give it to?” but “For whom is that?” “To whom did you give it?” Compare THAT, WHO.

whole, whole of: The whole or whole of should be used before a plural noun carefully, and then only when the body is referred to collectively. In general the word entire would better express the phrase. In such cases all should never be employed, as this relates to the individual of which the body is composed. Thus, one may say, “The whole staff accompanied the general,” or (for emphasis) “The whole of the staff,” etc., but it would be better to say “The entire staff.”

If referring to the individual officers, the sentence should read “All members of the staff accompanied the general.”

whole push, the. See PUSH.

widow woman: A pleonasm. Do not use the word widow, which applies only to a woman, with the words woman or lady. It is an error of speech, common in rural districts, against which it is wise to continually guard.

wife. Compare LADY.

wild: A colloquialism for “angry” which is to be preferred.

windbag: A coarse term for a boastful and wordy talker: not used by persons who cultivate a refined diction. “Braggart,” “braggadocia,” are more elegant, yet equally expressive terms.

with, and: A nominative singular is sometimes used with an objective after with to form, jointly, the subject of a plural verb; as “The captain with all his crew were drowned.” But according to best usage the conjunction and is substituted for “with”; thus, “The captain and all his crew were drowned.” Where the objective is separated parenthetically by commas, a verb in the singular is used; as, “Aguinaldo, with all his followers, was captured by Gen. Funston.”

without: This, as used for “except” or “unless” is at the present day a vulgarism. “Without you intend business, do not call”; say, unless.

witness. Compare SEE.

woman. Compare LADY.

worse: An adverb sometimes used for more; as, “He disliked tea worse than coffee”: a vulgarism.

worst kind: For much or extremely; as, “I need (or want) a new pen the worst kind”: a vulgarism, besides equivocally suggesting “the worst kind of a pen.”

would better. Compare HAD BETTER.

would say: A hackneyed expression used by many commercial correspondents; inelegant and useless.

would seem should not be used for “seems.”

wrath. Compare TEMPER.

write you: This expression, for “write to you,” though common, is not grammatically correct. Where an object is expressed the dative “to” may be omitted. “He shipped me costly fabrics,” for “he shipped costly fabrics to me” is permissible, but “he shipped me” without any objective, or rather other objective of me would imply that the person speaking had been shipped. Of the expression “I will write you,” the only justification for it that can be found is in the supposition that the words “a letter” are understood.