http://www.arcamax.com/nonfiction/b-1100-10
How to Speak and Write Correctly
CHAPTER VIII
PITFALLS TO AVOID
Common Stumbling Blocks--Peculiar Constructions--Misused Forms.
ATTRACTION
Very often the verb is separated from its real nominative or subject
by several intervening words and in such cases one is liable to make
the verb agree with the subject nearest to it. Here are a few examples
showing that the leading writers now and then take a tumble into this
pitfall:
(1) "The partition which the two ministers made of the powers of
government _were_ singularly happy."--_Macaulay_.
(Should be _was_ to agree with its subject, _partition_.)
(2) "One at least of the qualities which fit it for training ordinary
men _unfit_ it for _training_ an extraordinary man."--_Bagehot_.
(Should be _unfits_ to agree with subject _one_.)
(3) "The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those
dangerous influences whose appearance _were_ the chief cause of our
action."--_The Times_.
(Should be _was_ to agree with _appearance_.)
(4) "An immense amount of confusion and indifference _prevail_ in
these days."--_Telegraph_.
(Should be _prevails_ to agree with amount.)
ELLIPSIS
Errors in ellipsis occur chiefly with prepositions.
His objection and condoning of the boy's course, seemed to say the
least, paradoxical.
(The preposition _to_ should come after objection.)
Many men of brilliant parts are crushed by force of circumstances and
their genius forever lost to the world.
(Some maintain that the missing verb after genius is _are_, but such
is ungrammatical. In such cases the right verb should be always
expressed: as--their genius _is_ forever lost to the world.)
THE SPLIT INFINITIVE
Even the best speakers and writers are in the habit of placing a
modifying word or words between the _to_ and the remaining part of the
infinitive. It is possible that such will come to be looked upon in
time as the proper form but at present the splitting of the infinitive
is decidedly wrong. "He was scarcely able _to_ even _talk_" "She
commenced _to_ rapidly _walk_ around the room." "_To have_ really
_loved_ is better than not _to have_ at all _loved_." In these
constructions it is much better not to split the infinitive. In
every-day speech the best speakers sin against this observance.
In New York City there is a certain magistrate, a member of "the 400,"
who prides himself on his diction in language. He tells this story: A
prisoner, a faded, battered specimen of mankind, on whose haggard
face, deeply lined with the marks of dissipation, there still lingered
faint reminders of better days long past, stood dejected before the
judge. "Where are you from?" asked the magistrate. "From Boston,"
answered the accused. "Indeed," said the judge, "indeed, yours is a
sad case, and yet you don't seem _to_ thoroughly _realise_ how low you
have sunk." The man stared as if struck. "Your honor does me an
injustice," he said bitterly. "The disgrace of arrest for drunkenness,
the mortification of being thrust into a noisome dungeon, the
publicity and humiliation of trial in a crowded and dingy courtroom I
can bear, but to be sentenced by a Police Magistrate who _splits his
infinitives_--that is indeed the last blow."
ONE
The indefinite adjective pronoun _one_ when put in place of a personal
substantive is liable to raise confusion. When a sentence or
expression is begun with the impersonal _one_ the word must be used
throughout in all references to the subject. Thus, "One must mind
one's own business if one wishes to succeed" may seem prolix and
awkward, nevertheless it is the proper form. You must not say--"One
must mind his business if he wishes to succeed," for the subject is
impersonal and therefore cannot exclusively take the masculine
pronoun. With _any one_ it is different. You may say--"If any one sins
he should acknowledge it; let him not try to hide it by another sin."
ONLY
This is a word that is a pitfall to the most of us whether learned or
unlearned. Probably it is the most indiscriminately used word in the
language. From the different positions it is made to occupy in a
sentence it can relatively change the meaning. For instance in the
sentence--"I _only_ struck him that time," the meaning to be inferred
is, that the only thing I did to him was to _strike_ him, not kick or
otherwise abuse him. But if the _only_ is shifted, so as to make the
sentence read-"I struck him _only_ that time" the meaning conveyed is,
that only on that occasion and at no other time did I strike him. If
another shift is made to-"I struck _only_ him that time," the meaning
is again altered so that it signifies he was the only person I struck.
In speaking we can by emphasis impress our meaning on our hearers, but
in writing we have nothing to depend upon but the position of the word
in the sentence. The best rule in regard to _only_ is to place it
_immediately before_ the word or phrase it modifies or limits.
ALONE
is another word which creates ambiguity and alters meaning. If we
substitute it for only in the preceding example the meaning of the
sentence will depend upon the arrangement. Thus "I _alone_ struck him
at that time" signifies that I and no other struck him. When the
sentence reads "I struck him _alone_ at that time" it must be
interpreted that he was the only person that received a blow. Again if
it is made to read "I struck him at that time _alone_" the sense
conveyed is that that was the only occasion on which I struck him. The
rule which governs the correct use of _only_ is also applicable to
_alone_.
OTHER AND ANOTHER
These are words which often give to expressions a meaning far from
that intended. Thus, "I have _nothing_ to do with that _other_ rascal
across the street," certainly means that I am a rascal myself. "I sent
the despatch to my friend, but another villain intercepted it,"
clearly signifies that my friend is a villain.
A good plan is to omit these words when they can be readily done
without, as in the above examples, but when it is necessary to use
them make your meaning clear. You can do this by making each sentence
or phrase in which they occur independent of contextual aid.
AND WITH THE RELATIVE
Never use _and_ with the _relative_ in this manner: "That is the dog I
meant _and which_ I know is of pure breed." This is an error quite
common. The use of _and_ is permissible when there is a parallel
relative in the preceding sentence or clause. Thus: "There is the dog
which I meant and which I know is of pure breed" is quite correct.
LOOSE PARTICIPLES
A participle or participial phrase is naturally referred to the
nearest nominative. If only one nominative is expressed it claims all
the participles that are not by the construction of the sentence
otherwise fixed. "John, working in the field all day and getting
thirsty, drank from the running stream." Here the participles
_working_ and _getting_ clearly refer to John. But in the
sentence,--"Swept along by the mob I could not save him," the
participle as it were is lying around loose and may be taken to refer
to either the person speaking or to the person spoken about. It may
mean that I was swept along by the mob or the individual whom I tried
to save was swept along.
"Going into the store the roof fell" can be taken that it was the roof
which was going into the store when it fell. Of course the meaning
intended is that some person or persons were going into the store just
as the roof fell.
In all sentence construction with participles there should be such
clearness as to preclude all possibility of ambiguity. The participle
should be so placed that there can be no doubt as to the noun to which
it refers. Often it is advisable to supply such words as will make the
meaning obvious.
BROKEN CONSTRUCTION
Sometimes the beginning of a sentence presents quite a different
grammatical construction from its end. This arises from the fact
probably, that the beginning is lost sight of before the end is
reached. This occurs frequently in long sentences. Thus: "Honesty,
integrity and square-dealing will bring anybody much better through
life than the absence of either." Here the construction is broken at
_than_. The use of _either_, only used in referring to one of two,
shows that the fact is forgotten that three qualities and not two are
under consideration. Any one of the three meanings might be intended
in the sentence, viz., absence of any one quality, absence of any two
of the qualities or absence of the whole three qualities. Either
denotes one or the other of two and should never be applied to any one
of more than two. When we fall into the error of constructing such
sentences as above, we should take them apart and reconstruct them in
a different grammatical form. Thus,--"Honesty, integrity and
square-dealing will bring a man much better through life than a lack
of these qualities which are almost essential to success."
DOUBLE NEGATIVE
It must be remembered that two negatives in the English language
destroy each other and are equivalent to an affirmative. Thus "I
_don't_ know _nothing_ about it" is intended to convey, that I am
ignorant of the matter under consideration, but it defeats its own
purpose, inasmuch as the use of nothing implies that I know something
about it. The sentence should read--"I don't know anything about it."
Often we hear such expressions as "He was _not_ asked to give _no_
opinion," expressing the very opposite of what is intended. This
sentence implies that he was asked to give his opinion. The double
negative, therefore, should be carefully avoided, for it is insidious
and is liable to slip in and the writer remain unconscious of its
presence until the eye of the critic detects it.
FIRST PERSONAL PRONOUN
The use of the first personal pronoun should be avoided as much as
possible in composition. Don't introduce it by way of apology and
never use such expressions as "In my opinion," "As far as I can see,"
"It appears to me," "I believe," etc. In what you write, the whole
composition is expressive of your views, since you are the author,
therefore, there is no necessity for you to accentuate or emphasize
yourself at certain portions of it.
Moreover, the big _I's_ savor of egotism! Steer clear of them as far
as you can. The only place where the first person is permissible is in
passages where you are stating a view that is not generally held and
which is likely to meet with opposition.
SEQUENCE OF TENSES
When two verbs depend on each other their tenses must have a definite
relation to each other. "I shall have much pleasure in accepting your
kind invitation" is wrong, unless you really mean that just now you
decline though by-and-by you intend to accept; or unless you mean that
you do accept now, though you have no pleasure in doing so, but look
forward to be more pleased by-and-by. In fact the sequence of the
compound tenses puzzle experienced writers. The best plan is to go
back in thought to the time in question and use the tense you would
_then_ naturally use. Now in the sentence "I should have liked to have
gone to see the circus" the way to find out the proper sequence is to
ask yourself the question--what is it I "should have liked" to do? and
the plain answer is "to go to see the circus." I cannot answer--"To
have gone to see the circus" for that would imply that at a certain
moment I would have liked to be in the position of having gone to the
circus. But I do not mean this; I mean that at the moment at which I
am speaking I wish I had gone to see the circus. The verbal phrase _I
should have liked_ carries me back to the time when there was a chance
of seeing the circus and once back at the time, the going to the
circus is a thing of the present. This whole explanation resolves
itself into the simple question,--what should I have liked _at that
time_, and the answer is "to go to see the circus," therefore this is
the proper sequence, and the expression should be "I should have liked
to go to see the circus."
If we wish to speak of something relating to a time _prior_ to that
indicated in the past tense we must use the perfect tense of the
infinitive; as, "He appeared to have seen better days." We should say
"I expected to _meet him_," not "I expected _to have met him_." "We
intended _to visit you_," not "_to have visited_ you." "I hoped they
_would_ arrive," not "I hoped they _would have_ arrived." "I thought I
should _catch_ the bird," not "I thought I should _have caught_ the
bird." "I had intended _to go_ to the meeting," not "I had intended to
_have gone_ to the meeting."
BETWEEN--AMONG
These prepositions are often carelessly interchanged. _Between_ has
reference to two objects only, _among_ to more than two. "The money
was equally divided between them" is right when there are only two,
but if there are more than two it should be "the money was equally
divided among them."
LESS--FEWER
_Less_ refers is quantity, _fewer_ to number. "No man has _less_
virtues" should be "No man has _fewer_ virtues." "The farmer had some
oats and a _fewer_ quantity of wheat" should be "the farmer had some
oats and a _less_ quantity of wheat."
FURTHER--FARTHER
_Further_ is commonly used to denote quantity, _farther_ to denote
distance. "I have walked _farther_ than you," "I need no _further_
supply" are correct.