cks-Peculiar Constru

RAC

ds and in such cases one is liable to make the verb agree with the subject nearest to it. Here

ers made of the powers of governmen

agree with its s

it for training ordinary men unfit it for

ts to agree wit

country those dangerous influences whose appearan

s to agree wi

sion and indifference preva

vails to agree

LI

s occur chiefly w

of the boy's course, seemed

to should come

hed by force of circumstances and th

such is ungrammatical. In such cases the right verb should be

LIT IN

d 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 ha

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 injus

N

nces 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

N

. 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 h

e nothing to depend upon but the position of the word in the sentence. The best rule in

L

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

AND

to do with that other rascal across the street," certainly means that I am a rascal myself. "I sent the

ve examples, but when it is necessary to use them make your meaning clear. You can do t

H THE R

his is an error quite common. The use of and is permissible when there is a parallel relative in the preceding

PART

orking 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 partici

h was going into the store when it fell. Of course the meaning intended is

ssibility of ambiguity. The participle should be so placed that there can be no doubt as to the no

CONST

truction 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 th

E NEG

n't know nothing about it" is intended to convey, that I am ignorant of the matter under consideration, but it defeats its own purpo

s sentence implies that he was asked to give his opinion. The double negative, therefore, should be carefully avoided, for it

ERSONAL

h 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 express

only place where the first person is permissible is in passages where you are sta

CE OF

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 a

" 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 h

EEN-

, among to more than two. "The money was equally divided between them" is right when there are

S-F

e "No man has fewer virtues." "The farmer had some oats and a fewer quantity

ER-FA

ther to denote distance. "I have walked farther

HER-ONE

ck each other" is correct. "Jones, Smith and Brown quarreled; they struck one another" is als

RY, EITHE

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 us

illustrate the correc

he crew recei

he regiment di

n either side

the two i

THE

neither, nor use a singular verb; as, Neithe

O

e is so blind as he who will not see" and "None are so blind as they who will not s

E-R

y manner; as to "rise from bed;" to increase in value, to improve in positi

as "I raise the table;" "He raised his serv

Y-

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 a

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." "He laid himself d

e verbs that to lay means to do something,

I-I

sm; don't use it. "I

-I

nt in the room" nor "My brother is into the navy." In denotes the place where a person or thing, whether at rest or

T-

ad" means that the act of eating is past. Eaten is the perfect participle, but often eat is used instead, and as it has the

CE OF

cond takes precedence of the third. When Cardinal Wolsey said Ego et Rex

ME-HA

st arrived. When the subject is not a person, the verb to be should be used in pr

SE-PAST

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" fo

a man meeting death on the gallows, say "He was hanged"; when you are talking about the carcass of

S AND THE O

ake the objective case. Don't say "Betw

ction between them. "He was refused admission to and forcibly ejected from the scho

ON-S

" but "I shall summon him." Sum

I shall get a summons

LE-UNEXC

ression should be in that case "My brother has an unexceptionable character." An undeniable character is a character

PRON

ould be "Let you and me go." "Let them and we go" should be "Let them and

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

s is a part takes the same case after it that it has before i

as a pronoun asking a question; The nominative I requires the nominative who

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

ve cases of the pronouns. For "He and they we

T F

painful it made him

SE-

ection with these demonstrative adjective pronouns remember that this and these refer to what is near at hand, that and tho

UCH-TH

should be "Thus much

EE

, 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 flo

H-THRO

rough the land," but "He is we

N AND A

ness or profession one follows for a living; avocation is some pursuit or occup

the law, his avo

S-

u 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

OR

the sake of euphony or agreeable sound to the e