A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W Y Z

New Philadelphia Book Publisher Highlights Local Talent
Book and Publishing News from Publishers Newswire(tm)

Looking for Child to be on Cover of a New Book, 'The Model Child'
PHILADELPHIA, Pa. -- The Philadelphia literary world will celebrate the launch of two new players today, April 10th: Kay Square Press, a new publishing company focused on Philadelphia-area artists, their stories, and their art; and Kay Square's first release, 'With the Rich and Mighty: Emlen Etting of Philadelphia' (ISBN: 978-0-9815129-0-7), a critical biography by Kenneth C. Kaleta.

FlatSigned Press Alleges Don Imus Remarks Damage Legacy of President Gerald R. Ford
NEW YORK, N.Y. -- Nathan Yungerberg, an accomplished model scout and professional child photographer is launching a nation-wide casting call to find the cover model for his highly anticipated book release, 'The Model Child: A Parents Guide to the Child Modeling Industry' (ISBN: 978-0-9817018-0-6).


Books: How to Speak and Write Correctly

J >> Joseph Devlin >> How to Speak and Write Correctly

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11




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.


EACH OTHER--ONE ANOTHER

_Each other_ refers to two, _one another_ to more than two. "Jones and
Smith quarreled; they struck each other" is correct. "Jones, Smith and
Brown quarreled; they struck one another" is also correct. Don't say,
"The two boys teach one another" nor "The three girls love each other."


EACH, EVERY, EITHER, NEITHER

These words are continually misapplied. _Each_ can be applied to two
or any higher number of objects to signify _every one_ of the number
_independently_. Every requires _more than two_ to be spoken of and
denotes all the _persons_ or _things_ taken _separately_. _Either_
denotes _one or the other of two_, and should not be used to include
both. _Neither_ is the negative of either, denoting not the other,
and not the one, and relating to _two persons_ or _things_ considered
separately.

The following examples illustrate the correct usage of these words:

_Each_ man of the crew received a reward.

_Every_ man in the regiment displayed bravery.

We can walk on _either_ side of the street.

_Neither_ of the two is to blame.


NEITHER-NOR

When two singular subjects are connected by _neither_, _nor_ use a
singular verb; as, "_Neither_ John _nor_ James _was there_," not _were_
there.


NONE

Custom Has sanctioned the use of this word both with a singular and
plural; as--"None _is_ so blind as he who will not see" and "None _are_
so blind as they who will not see." However, as it is a contraction of
_no one_ it is better to use the singular verb.


RISE-RAISE

These verbs are very often confounded. _Rise_ is to move or pass upward
in any manner; as to "rise from bed;" to increase in value, to improve in
position or rank, as "stocks rise;" "politicians rise;" "they have risen
to honor."

_Raise_ is to lift up, to exalt, to enhance, as "I raise the table;"
"He raised his servant;" "The baker raised the price of _bread_."


LAY-LIE

The transitive verb _lay_, and _lay_, the past tense of the neuter verb
_lie_, are often confounded, though quite different in meaning. The
neuter verb _to lie_, meaning to lie down or rest, cannot take the
objective after it except with a preposition. We can say "He _lies_ on
the ground," but we cannot say "He _lies_ the ground," since the verb is
neuter and intransitive and, as such, cannot have a direct object. With
_lay_ it is different. _Lay_ is a transitive verb, therefore it takes a
direct object after it; as "I _lay_ a wager," "I _laid_ the carpet," etc.

Of a carpet or any inanimate subject we should say, "It lies on the
floor," "A knife _lies_ on the table," not _lays_. But of a person we
say--"He _lays_ the knife on the table," not "He _lies_----." _Lay_ being
the past tense of the neuter to lie (down) we should say, "He _lay_ on
the bed," and _lain_ being its past participle we must also say "He has
_lain_ on the bed."

We can say "I lay myself down." "He laid himself down" and such
expressions.

It is imperative to remember in using these verbs that to _lay_ means _to
do_ something, and to lie means _to be in a state of rest_.


SAYS I--I SAID

_"Says I"_ is a vulgarism; don't use it. "I said" is correct form.


IN--INTO

Be careful to distinguish the meaning of these two little prepositions
and don't interchange them. Don't say "He went _in_ the room" nor "My
brother is _into_ the navy." _In_ denotes the place where a person or
thing, whether at rest or in motion, is present; and _into_ denotes
_entrance_. "He went _into_ the room;" "My brother is _in_ the navy" are
correct.


EAT--ATE

Don't confound the two. _Eat_ is present, _ate_ is past. "I _eat_ the
bread" means that I am continuing the eating; "I _ate_ the bread" means
that the act of eating is past. _Eaten_ is the perfect participle, but
often _eat_ is used instead, and as it has the same pronunciation (et) of
_ate_, care should be taken to distinguish the past tense, I _ate_ from
the perfect _I have eaten_ (_eat_).


SEQUENCE OF PERSON

Remember that the _first_ person takes precedence of the _second_ and the
_second_ takes precedence of the _third_. When Cardinal Wolsey said _Ego
et Rex_ (I and the King), he showed he was a good grammarian, but a bad
courtier.


AM COME--HAVE COME

"_I am come_" points to my being here, while "I have come" intimates that
I have just arrived. When the subject is not a person, the verb _to be_
should be used in preference to the verb _to have_; as, "The box is come"
instead of "The box has come."


PAST TENSE--PAST PARTICIPLE

The interchange of these two parts of the irregular or so-called _strong_
verbs is, perhaps, the breach oftenest committed by careless speakers and
writers. To avoid mistakes it is requisite to know the principal parts of
these verbs, and this knowledge is very easy of acquirement, as there are
not more than a couple of hundred of such verbs, and of this number but a
small part is in daily use. Here are some of the most common blunders: "I
seen" for "I saw;" "I done it" for "I did it;" "I drunk" for "I drank;"
"I begun" for "I began;" "I rung" for "I rang;" "I run" for "I ran;" "I
sung" for "I sang;" "I have chose" for "I have chosen;" "I have drove"
for "I have driven;" "I have wore" for "I have worn;" "I have trod" for
"I have trodden;" "I have shook" for "I have shaken;" "I have fell" for
"I have fallen;" "I have drank" for "I have drunk;" "I have began" for "I
have begun;" "I have rang" for "I have rung;" "I have rose" for "I have
risen;" "I have spoke" for "I have spoken;" "I have broke" for "I have
broken." "It has froze" for "It has frozen." "It has blowed" for "It has
blown." "It has flowed" (of a bird) for "It has flown."

N. B.--The past tense and past participle of _To Hang_ is _hanged_ or
_hung_. When you are talking about a man meeting death on the gallows,
say "He was hanged"; when you are talking about the carcass of an animal
say, "It was hung," as "The beef was hung dry." Also say your coat "_was_
hung on a hook."


PREPOSITIONS AND THE OBJECTIVE CASE

Don't forget that prepositions always take the objective case. Don't say
"Between you and _I_"; say "Between you and _me_"

_Two_ prepositions should not govern _one objective_ unless there is an
immediate connection between them. "He was refused admission to and
forcibly ejected from the school" should be "He was refused admission to
the school and forcibly ejected from it."


SUMMON--SUMMONS

Don't say "I shall summons him," but "I shall summon him." _Summon_ is a
verb, _summons_, a noun.

It is correct to say "I shall get a _summons_ for him," not a _summon_.


UNDENIABLE--UNEXCEPTIONABLE

"My brother has an undeniable character" is wrong if I wish to convey the
idea that he has a good character. The expression should be in that case
"My brother has an unexceptionable character." An _undeniable_ character
is a character that cannot be denied, whether bad or good. An
unexceptionable character is one to which no one can take exception.


THE PRONOUNS

Very many mistakes occur in the use of the pronouns. "Let you and I go"
should be "Let you and _me_ go." "Let them and we go" should be "Let them
and us go." The verb let is transitive and therefore takes the objective
case.

"Give me _them_ flowers" should be "Give me _those_ flowers"; "I mean
_them_ three" should be "I mean those three." Them is the objective case
of the personal pronoun and cannot be used adjectively like the
demonstrative adjective pronoun. "I am as strong as _him_" should be "I
am as strong as _he_"; "I am younger than _her_" should be "I am younger
than _she_;" "He can write better than _me_" should be "He can write
better than I," for in these examples the objective cases _him_, _her_
and _me_ are used wrongfully for the nominatives. After each of the
misapplied pronouns a verb is understood of which each pronoun is the
subject. Thus, "I am as strong as he (is)." "I am younger than she (is)."
"He can write better than I (can)."

Don't say "_It is me_;" say "_It is I_" The verb _To Be_ of which is is a
part takes the same case after it that it has before it. This holds good
in all situations as well as with pronouns.

The verb _To Be_ also requires the pronouns joined to it to be in the
same case as a pronoun asking a question; The nominative _I_ requires the
nominative _who_ and the objectives _me_, _him_, _her_, _its_, _you_,
_them_, require the objective _whom_.

"_Whom_ do you think I am?" should be "_Who_ do you think I am?" and
"_Who_ do they suppose me to be?" should be "_Whom_ do they suppose me to
be?" The objective form of the Relative should be always used, in
connection with a preposition. "Who do you take me for?" should be
"_Whom_ do, etc." "Who did you give the apple to?" should be "Whom did
you give the apple to," but as pointed out elsewhere the preposition
should never end a sentence, therefore, it is better to say, "To whom did
you give the apple?"

After transitive verbs always use the objective cases of the pronouns.
For "_He_ and _they_ we have seen," say "_Him_ and _them_ we have seen."


THAT FOR SO

"The hurt it was that painful it made him cry," say "so painful."


THESE--THOSE

Don't say, _These kind; those sort_. _Kind_ and _sort_ are each singular
and require the singular pronouns _this_ and _that_. In connection with
these demonstrative adjective pronouns remember that _this_ and _these_
refer to what is near at hand, _that_ and _those_ to what is more
distant; as, _this book_ (near me), _that book_ (over there), _these_
boys (near), _those_ boys (at a distance).


THIS MUCH--THUS MUCH

"_This_ much is certain" should be "_Thus_ much or _so_ much is certain."


FLEE--FLY

These are two separate verbs and must not be interchanged. The principal
parts of _flee_ are _flee_, _fled_, _fled_; those of _fly_ are _fly_,
_flew_, _flown_. _To flee_ is generally used in the meaning of getting
out of danger. _To fly_ means to soar as a bird. To say of a man "He _has
flown_ from the place" is wrong; it should be "He _has fled_ from the
place." We can say with propriety that "A bird has _flown_ from the
place."


THROUGH--THROUGHOUT

Don't say "He is well known through the land," but "He is well known
throughout the land."


VOCATION AND AVOCATION

Don't mistake these two words so nearly alike. Vocation is the employment,
business or profession one follows for a living; avocation is some
pursuit or occupation which diverts the person from such employment,
business or profession. Thus

"His vocation was the law, his avocation, farming."


WAS--WERE

In the subjunctive mood the plural form _were_ should be used with a
singular subject; as, "If I _were_," not _was_. Remember the plural form
of the personal pronoun _you_ always takes _were_, though it may denote
but one. Thus, "_You were_," never "_you was_." "_If I was him_" is a
very common expression. Note the two mistakes in it,--that of the verb
implying a condition, and that of the objective case of the pronoun. It
should read _If I were he_. This is another illustration of the rule
regarding the verb _To Be_, taking the same case after it as before it;
_were_ is part of the verb _To Be_, therefore as the nominative (I) goes
before it, the nominative (he) should come after it.


A OR AN

_A_ becomes an before a vowel or before _h_ mute for the sake of euphony
or agreeable sound to the ear. _An apple_, _an orange_, _an heir_, _an
honor_, etc.




CHAPTER IX

STYLE

Diction--Purity--Propriety--Precision.


It is the object of every writer to put his thoughts into as effective
form as possible so as to make a good impression on the reader. A person
may have noble thoughts and ideas but be unable to express them in such a
way as to appeal to others, consequently he cannot exert the full force
of his intellectuality nor leave the imprint of his character upon his
time, whereas many a man but indifferently gifted may wield such a facile
pen as to attract attention and win for himself an envious place among
his contemporaries.

In everyday life one sees illustrations of men of excellent mentality
being cast aside and ones of mediocre or in some cases, little, if any,
ability chosen to fill important places. The former are unable to impress
their personality; they have great thoughts, great ideas, but these
thoughts and ideas are locked up in their brains and are like prisoners
behind the bars struggling to get free. The key of language which would
open the door is wanting, hence they have to remain locked up.

Many a man has to pass through the world unheard of and of little benefit
to it or himself, simply because he cannot bring out what is in him and
make it subservient to his will. It is the duty of every one to develop his
best, not only for the benefit of himself but for the good of his fellow
men. It is not at all necessary to have great learning or acquirements, the
laborer is as useful in his own place as the philosopher in his; nor is it
necessary to have many talents. One talent rightly used is much better than
ten wrongly used. Often a man can do more with one than his contemporary
can do with ten, often a man can make one dollar go farther than twenty in
the hands of his neighbor, often the poor man lives more comfortably than
the millionaire. All depends upon the individual himself. If he make right
use of what the Creator has given him and live according to the laws of God
and nature he is fulfilling his allotted place in the universal scheme of
creation, in other words, when he does his best, he is living up to the
standard of a useful manhood.

Now in order to do his best a man of ordinary intelligence and education
should be able to express himself correctly both in speaking and writing,
that is, he should be able to convey his thoughts in an intelligent
manner which the simplest can understand. The manner in which a speaker
or writer conveys his thoughts is known as his Style. In other words
_Style_ may be defined as the peculiar manner in which a man expresses
his conceptions through the medium of language. It depends upon the
choice of words and their arrangement to convey a meaning. Scarcely any
two writers have exactly the same style, that is to say, express their
ideas after the same peculiar form, just as no two mortals are fashioned
by nature in the same mould, so that one is an exact counterpart of the
other.

Just as men differ in the accent and tones of their voices, so do they
differ in the construction of their language.

Two reporters sent out on the same mission, say to report a fire, will
verbally differ in their accounts though materially both descriptions
will be the same as far as the leading facts are concerned. One will
express himself in a style _different_ from the other.

If you are asked to describe the dancing of a red-haired lady at the last
charity ball you can either say--"The ruby Circe, with the Titian locks
glowing like the oriflamme which surrounds the golden god of day as he
sinks to rest amid the crimson glory of the burnished West, gave a divine
exhibition of the Terpsichorean art which thrilled the souls of the
multitude" or, you can simply say--"The red-haired lady danced very well
and pleased the audience."

The former is a specimen of the ultra florid or bombastic style which may
be said to depend upon the pomposity of verbosity for its effect, the
latter is a specimen of simple _natural_ Style. Needless to say it is to
be preferred. The other should be avoided. It stamps the writer as a
person of shallowness, ignorance and inexperience. It has been eliminated
from the newspapers. Even the most flatulent of yellow sheets no longer
tolerate it in their columns. Affectation and pedantry in style are now
universally condemned.

It is the duty of every speaker and writer to labor after a pleasing
style. It gains him an entrance where he would otherwise be debarred.
Often the interest of a subject depends as much on the way it is
presented as on the subject itself. One writer will make it attractive,
another repulsive. For instance take a passage in history. Treated by one
historian it is like a desiccated mummy, dry, dull, disgusting, while
under the spell of another it is, as it were, galvanized into a virile
living thing which not only pleases but captivates the reader.


DICTION

The first requisite of style is _choice_ of _words_, and this comes under
the head of _Diction_, the property of style which has reference to the
words and phrases used in speaking and writing. The secret of literary
skill from any standpoint consists in putting the right word in the right
place. In order to do this it is imperative to know the meaning of the
words we use, their exact literal meaning. Many synonymous words are
seemingly interchangeable and appear as if the same meaning were applicable
to three or four of them at the same time, but when all such words are
reduced to a final analysis it is clearly seen that there is a marked
difference in their meaning. For instance _grief_ and _sorrow_ seem to be
identical, but they are not. _Grief_ is active, _sorrow_ is more or less
passive; _grief_ is caused by troubles and misfortunes which come to us
from the outside, while _sorrow_ is often the consequence of our own
acts. _Grief_ is frequently loud and violent, _sorrow_ is always quiet
and retiring. _Grief_ shouts, _Sorrow_ remains calm.

If you are not sure of the exact meaning of a word look it up immediately
in the dictionary. Sometimes some of our great scholars are puzzled over
simple words in regard to meaning, spelling or pronunciation. Whenever
you meet a strange word note it down until you discover its meaning and
use. Read the best books you can get, books written by men and women who
are acknowledged masters of language, and study how they use their words,
where they place them in the sentences, and the meanings they convey to
the readers.

Mix in good society. Listen attentively to good talkers and try to
imitate their manner of expression. If a word is used you do not
understand, don't be ashamed to ask its meaning.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11