The Verbalist Part 20

"You shall stifle in your own report, and _smell of_ calumny."--Shakespeare.

TAUTOLOGY. Among the things to be avoided in writing is _tautology_, which is _the repeating of the same thought_, whether in the same or in different words.

TAUTOPHONY. "A regard for harmony requires us, in the progress of a sentence, to avoid repeating a sound by employing the same word more than once, or using, in contiguous words, similar combinations of letters. This fault is known as _tautology_."--Dr. G. P. Quackenbos, "Advanced Course of Composition and Rhetoric," p. 300. Dr. Quackenbos is in error. The repet.i.tion of the same _sense_ is tautology, and the repet.i.tion of the same _sound_, or, as Dr. Quackenbos has it, "the repeating of a sound by employing the same word more than once, or by using in contiguous words similar combinations of letters," is _tautophony_.

TEACH. To impart knowledge, to inform, to instruct; as, "_Teach_ me how to do it"; "_Teach_ me to swim"; "He _taught_ me to write." The uncultured often misuse _learn_ for _teach_. See LEARN.

TENSE. The errors made in the use of the tenses are manifold. The one most frequently made by persons of culture--the one that everybody makes would, perhaps, be nearer the fact--is that of using the _imperfect_ instead of the _perfect_ tense; thus, "I never _saw_ it played but once": say, _have seen_. "He was the largest man I ever _saw_": say, _have seen_. "I never in my life _had_ such trouble": say, _have had_. Another frequent error, the making of which is not confined to the unschooled, is that of using two verbs in a past tense when only one should be in that time; thus, "I intended to _have gone_": say, _to go_. "It was my intention to _have_ come": say, _to come_. "I expected to _have found_ you here": say, _to find_. "I was very desirous to _have gone_": say, _to go_. "He was better than I expected to _have found_ him": say, _to find_.

Among other common errors are the following: "I _seen_ him when he _done_ it": say, "I _saw_ him when he _did_ it." "I should have _went_ home": say, _gone_. "If he had _went_": say, _gone_. "I wish you had _went_": say, _gone_. "He has _went_ out": say, _gone_. "I _come_ to town this morning": say, _came_. "He _come_ to me for advice": say, _came_. "It _begun_ very late": say, _began_. "It had already _began_": say, _begun_. "The following toasts were _drank_": say, _drunk_. "His text was that G.o.d _was_ love": say, _is_ love. Another error is made in such sentences as these: "If I had _have_ known": say, _had known_. "If he had _have_ come as he promised": say, _had come_. "If you had _have_ told me": say, _had told_.

TESTIMONY. See EVIDENCE.

THAN. _Than_ and _as_ implying comparison have the same case after as before them. "He owes more than _me_": read, than _I_--i. e., more than _I owe_. "John is not so old as _her_": read, as _she_--i. e., as _she is_. We should say, then, "He is stronger than _she_," "She is older than _he_," "You are richer than _I_," etc. But it does not always happen that the nominative case comes after _than_ or _as_. "I love you more than _him_," "I give you more than _him_," "I love you as well as _him_"; that is to say, "I love you more than _I love him_," "I give you more than _I give him_," "I love you as well as _I love him_." Take away _him_ and put _he_ in all these cases, and the grammar is just as good, but the meaning is quite different. "I love you as well as _him_," means that I love you as well _as I love him_; but, "I love you as well as _he_," means that I love you as well _as he loves you_.

THAN WHOM. Cobbett, in his "Grammar of the English Language," says: "There is an erroneous way of employing _whom_, which I must point out to your particular attention, because it is so often seen in very good writers, and because it is very deceiving. 'The Duke of Argyll, _than whom_ no man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell, _than whom_ no man was better skilled in artifice.' A hundred such phrases might be collected from Hume, Blackstone, and even from Drs. Blair and Johnson.

Yet they are bad grammar. In all such cases, _who_ should be made use of: for it is _nominative_ and not objective. 'No man was more hearty in the cause _than he was_'; 'No man was better skilled in artifice _than he was_.'[36] It is a very common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore presumably _corrupt_; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: 'Pope, _than whom_ few men had more vanity.' The Doctor did not say, 'Myself, _than whom_ few men have been found more base, having, in my dictionary, described a pensioner as a slave of state, and having afterward myself become a pensioner.'

"I differ in this matter from Bishop Lowth, who says that 'The relative _who_, having reference to no verb or preposition understood, but only to its antecedent, when it follows _than_, is _always in the objective case_; even though the p.r.o.noun, if subst.i.tuted in its place, would be in the nominative.' And then he gives an instance from Milton. 'Beelzebub, _than whom_, Satan except, none higher sat.' It is curious enough that this sentence of the Bishop is, itself, ungrammatical! Our poor unfortunate _it_ is so placed as to make it a matter of doubt whether the Bishop meant it to relate to _who_ or to _its antecedent_. However, we know its meaning; but, though he says that _who_, when it follows _than_, is always in the objective case, he gives us no reason for this departure from a clear general principle; unless we are to regard as a reason the example of Milton, who has committed many hundreds, if not thousands, of grammatical errors, many of which the Bishop himself has pointed out. There is a sort of side-wind attempt at reason in the words, 'having reference to no _verb_ or _preposition_ understood.' I do not see the _reason_, even if this could be; but it appears to me impossible that a noun or p.r.o.noun can exist in a grammatical state without having reference to some _verb_ or _preposition_, either expressed or understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, none _sat_ higher, except Satan.' And when, in order to avoid the repet.i.tion of the word Beelzebub, the relative becomes necessary, the full construction must be, 'no devil sat higher _than who_ sat, except Satan'; and not, 'no devil sat higher _than whom_ sat.'[37] The supposition that there can be a noun or p.r.o.noun which has reference to _no verb_ and _no preposition_, is certainly a mistake."

Of this, Dr. Fitzedward Hall remarks, in his "Recent Exemplifications of False Philology": "That any one but Cobbett would abide this as English is highly improbable; and how the expression--a quite cla.s.sical one--which he discards can be justified grammatically, except by calling its _than_ a preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and pleasure."

THANKS. There are many persons who think it in questionable taste to use _thanks_ for _thank you_.

THAT. The best writers often appear to grope after a separate employment for the several relatives.

"'THAT' _is the proper restrictive, explicative, limiting, or defining relative_.

"'_That_,' the neuter of the definite article, was early in use as a neuter relative. All the other oldest relatives gradually dropt away, and 'that' came to be applied also to plural antecedents, and to masculines and feminines. When 'as,' 'which,' and 'who' came forward to share the work of 'that,' there seems to have arisen not a little uncertainty about the relatives, and we find curious double forms: 'whom that,' 'which that,' 'which as,' etc. Gower has, 'Venus _whose_ priest _that_ I am'; Chaucer writes--'This Abbot _which that_ was an holy man,'

'his love _the which that_ he oweth.' By the Elizabethan period, these double forms have disappeared, and all the relatives are used singly without hesitation. From then till now, 'that' has been struggling with 'who' and 'which' to regain superior favor, with varying success. 'Who'

is used for persons, 'which' for things, in both numbers; so is 'that'; and the only opportunity of a special application of 'that' lies in the important distinction between coordination and restriction. Now, as 'who' and 'which' are most commonly preferred for coordination, it would be a clear gain to confine them to this sense, and to reserve 'that' for the restrictive application alone. This arrangement, then, would _fall in with the most general use of 'that,' especially beyond the limits of formal composition_.

"The use of 'that' solely as restrictive, with 'who' and 'which' solely as coordinating, _also avoids ambiguities_ that often attend the indiscriminate use of 'who' and 'which' for coordinate and for restrictive clauses. Thus, when we say, 'his conduct surprised his English friends, _who_ had not known him long,' we may mean either that his English friends generally were surprised (the relative being, in that case, _coordinating_), or that only a portion of them--namely, the particular portion that had not known him long--were surprised. In this last case the relative is meant to define or explain the antecedent, and the doubt would be removed by writing thus: 'his English friends _that_ had not known him long.' So in the following sentence there is a similar ambiguity in the use of 'which': 'the next winter _which_ you will spend in town will give you opportunities of making a more prudent choice.'

This may mean, either 'you will spend next winter in town' ('which'

being coordinating), or 'the next of the winters when you are to live in town,' let that come when it may. In the former case, 'which' is the proper relative; in the latter case, the meaning is restrictive or defining, and would be best brought out by 'that': 'the next winter _that_ you will spend in town.'

"A further consideration in favor of employing 'that' for explicative clauses is the unpleasant effect arising from the _too frequent repet.i.tion of 'who' and 'which.'_ Grammarians often recommend 'that' as a means of varying the style; but this end ought to be sought in subservience to the still greater end of perspicuity.

"The following examples will serve further to ill.u.s.trate the distinction between _that_, on the one hand, and _who_ and _which_, on the other:

"'In general, Mr. Burch.e.l.l was fondest of the company of children, _whom_ he used to call harmless little men.' 'Whom' is here idiomatically used, being the equivalent of '_and them_ he used to call,' etc.

"'Bacon at last, a mighty man, arose, _Whom_ a wise king and nation chose Lord Chancellor of both their laws.'

Here, also, 'whom' is equal to 'and him.'

"In the following instance the relative is restrictive or defining, and 'that' would be preferable: 'the conclusion of the "Iliad" is like the exit of a great man out of company _whom_ he has entertained magnificently.' Compare another of Addison's sentences: 'a man of polite imagination is let into a great many pleasures _that_ the vulgar are not capable of receiving.'

"Both relatives are introduced discriminatingly in this pa.s.sage:--'She had learned that from Mrs. Wood, _who_ had heard it from her husband, _who_ had heard it at the public-house from the landlord, _who_ had been let into the secret by the boy _that_ carried the beer to some of the prisoners.'

"The following sentences are ambiguous under the modern system of using 'who' for both purposes:--'I met the boatman _who_ took me across the ferry.' If 'who' is the proper relative here, the meaning is, 'I met the boatman, _and he_ took me across,' 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 circ.u.mstance that he had taken me across the ferry, I should use 'that.' 'The youngest boy _who_ has learned to dance is James.' This means either 'the youngest boy is James, _and he_ has learned to dance,' or, 'of the boys, the youngest that has learned to dance is James.' This last sense is restrictive, and 'that' should be used.

"Turning now to 'which,' we may have a series of parallel examples. 'The court, _which_ gives currency to manners, should be exemplary': here the meaning is 'the court should be exemplary, _for the court_ gives currency to manners.' 'Which' is the idiomatic relative in this case.

'The cat, _which_ you despise so much, is a very useful animal.' The relative here also is coordinating, and not restrictive. If it were intended to point out one individual cat specially despised by the person addressed, 'that' would convey the sense. 'A theory _which_ does not tend to the improvement of practice is utterly unworthy of regard.'

The meaning is restrictive; 'a theory _that_ does not tend.' The following sentence is one of many from Goldsmith that give 'that'

instead of 'which':--'Age, _that_ lessens the enjoyment of life, increases our desire of living.' Thackeray also was fond of this usage.

But it is not very common.

"'Their faith tended to make them improvident; but a wise instinct taught them that if there was one thing _which_ ought not to be left to fate, or to the precepts of a deceased prophet, it was the artillery'; a case where 'that' is the proper relative.

"'All words, _which_ are signs of complex ideas, furnish matter of mistake.' This gives an erroneous impression, and should be 'all words _that_ are signs of complex ideas.'

"'In all cases of prescription, the universal practice of judges is to direct juries by a.n.a.logy to the Statute of Limitations, to decide against incorporeal rights _which_ have for many years been relinquished': say instead, 'incorporeal rights _that_ have for many years,' and the sense is clear.

"It is necessary for the proper understanding of 'which' to advert to its peculiar function of referring to a whole clause as the antecedent: 'William ran along the top of the wall, _which_ alarmed his mother very much.' The antecedent is obviously not the noun 'wall,' but the fact expressed by the entire clause--'William ran,' etc. 'He by no means wants sense, _which_ only serves to aggravate his former folly'; namely, (not 'sense,' but) the circ.u.mstance 'that he does not want sense.' 'He is neither over-exalted by prosperity, nor too much depressed by misfortune; _which_ you must allow marks a great mind.' 'We have done many things _which_ we ought not to have done,' might mean 'we ought not _to have done many things_'; that is, 'we ought to have done few things.' 'That' would give the exact sense intended: 'we have done many things _that_ we ought not to have done.' 'He began to look after his affairs himself, _which_ was the way to make them prosper.'

"We must next allude to the cases where the relative is governed by a preposition. We can use a preposition before 'who' and 'which,' but when the relative is 'that,' the preposition must be thrown to the end of the clause. Owing to an imperfect appreciation of the genius of our language, offense was taken at this usage by some of our leading writers at the beginning of last century, and to this circ.u.mstance we must refer the disuse of 'that' as the relative of restriction.[38]

"'It is curious that the only circ.u.mstance connected with Scott, and related by Lockhart, _of which_ I was a witness, is incorrectly stated in the "Life of Sir Walter."'--Leslie's 'Memoirs.' The relative should be restrictive: '_that_ I was a witness _of_.'

"'There are many words _which_ are adjectives _which_ have nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns _to which_ they are put.'--Cobbett.

Better: 'there are many words _that_ are adjectives _that_ have nothing to do with the qualities of the nouns (_that_) they are put _to_.'

"'Other objects, _of which_ we have not occasion to speak so frequently, we do not designate by a name of their own.' This, if amended, would be: 'other objects _that_ we have not occasion to speak _of_ so frequently, we do not,' etc.

"'Sorrow for the dead is the only sorrow _from which_ we refuse to be divorced': 'the only sorrow (_that_) we refuse to be divorced _from_.'

"'Why, there is not a single sentence in this play _that_ I do not know the meaning _of_.'--Addison.

"'Originality is a thing we constantly clamor _for_, and constantly quarrel _with_.'--Carlyle.

"'A spirit more amiable, but less vigorous, than Luther's would have shrunk back from the dangers _which_ he braved and surmounted': '_that_ he braved'; 'the dangers _braved_ and _surmounted_ by him.'

"'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of those faults _from which_ civilized men _who_ settle among an uncivilized people are rarely free.'--Macaulay. 'Nor is it at all improbable that the emigrants had been guilty of _the_ faults _that_ (_such_ faults _as_) civilized men _that settle_ (_settling_, or _settled_) among an uncivilized people are rarely free _from_.'

"'Prejudices are notions or opinions _which_ the mind entertains without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _which_ are a.s.sented to without examination.'--Berkeley. The 'which' in both cases should be 'that,' but the relative may be entirely dispensed with by participial conversion: 'prejudices are notions or opinions _entertained_ by the mind without knowing the grounds and reasons of them, and _a.s.sented_ to without examination.'

"The too frequent repet.i.tion of 'who' and 'which' may be avoided by resolving them into the conjunction and personal or other p.r.o.noun: 'In such circ.u.mstances, the utmost that Bosquet could be expected to do was to hold his ground, (_which_) _and this_ he did.'"--Bain's "Higher English Grammar."

This word is sometimes vulgarly used for _so_; thus, "I was _that_ nervous I forgot everything"; "I was _that_ frightened I could hardly stand."

THE. Bungling writers sometimes write sheer nonsense, or say something very different from what they have in their minds, by the simple omission of the definite article; thus, "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, Latin and Greek is disclosed in almost every sentence framed." According to this, there is such a thing as a French, Latin and Greek tongue. Professor Townsend meant to say: "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, _the_ Latin, and _the_ Greek," etc.

THEN. The use of this word as an adjective is condemned in very emphatic terms by some of our grammarians, and yet this use of it has the sanction of such eminent writers as Addison, Johnson, Whately, and Sir J. Hawkins. Johnson says, "In his _then_ situation," which, if brevity be really the soul of wit, certainly has much more soul in it than "In the situation he then occupied." However, it is doubtful whether _then_, as an adjective, will ever again find favor with careful writers.

THENCE. See WHENCE.

THINK FOR. We not unfrequently hear a superfluous _for_ tacked to a sentence; thus, "You will find that he knows more about the affair than you think _for_."