How to Speak and Write Correctly by Joseph Devlin - HTML preview

So when we receive a letter from a woman we are enabled to tell whether she has a husband living or is a widow. A woman separated from her husband but not a _divorcee_ should _not_ sign his name.

ADDRESS

 

The _address_ of a letter consists of the name, the title and the residence.

 

Mr. Hugh Black,

 

112 Southgate Street, Altoona,

 

Pa.

Intimate friends have often familiar names for each other, such as pet names, nicknames, etc., which they use in the freedom of conversation, but such names should never, under any circumstances, appear on the envelope. The subscription on the envelope should be always written with propriety and correctness and as if penned by an entire stranger. The only difficulty in the envelope inscription is the title. Every man is entitled to _Mr._ and every lady to _Mrs._ and every unmarried lady to _Miss_. Even a boy is entitled to _Master_. When more than one is addressed the title is _Messrs._ _Mesdames_ is sometimes written of women. If the person addressed has a title it is courteous to use it, but titles never must be duplicated. Thus, we can write

Robert Stitt, M. D., but never Dr. Robert Stitt, M. D, or Mr. Robert Stitt, M. D.

In writing to a medical doctor it is well to indicate his profession by the letters M. D. so as to differentiate him from a D. D. It is better to write Robert Stitt, M. D., than Dr. Robert Stitt.

In the case of clergymen the prefix Rev. is retained even when they have other titles; as

 

Rev. Tracy Tooke, LL. D.

When a person has more titles than one it is customary to only give him the leading one. Thus instead of writing Rev. Samuel MacComb, B. A., M. A., B. Sc., Ph. D., LL. D., D. D. the form employed is Rev. Samuel MacComb, LL. D. LL. D. is appended in preference to D. D. because in most cases the "Rev." implies a "D. D." while comparatively few with the prefix "Rev." are entitled to "LL. D."

In the case of _Honorables_ such as Governors, Judges, Members of Congress, and others of the Civil Government the prefix "Hon." does away with _Mr._ and _Esq._ Thus we write Hon. Josiah Snifkins, not Hon. Mr. Josiah Snifkins or Hon. Josiah Snifkins, Esq. Though this prefix _Hon._ is also often applied to Governors they should be addressed as Excellency. For instance:

His Excellency,

 

Charles E. Hughes, Albany, N. Y.

 

In writing to the President the superscription on the envelope should be

 

To the President,

 

Executive Mansion, Washington, D. C.

Professional men such as doctors and lawyers as well as those having legitimately earned College Degrees may be addressed on the envelopes by their titles, as

Jonathan Janeway, M. D. Hubert Houston, B. L. Matthew Marks, M. A., etc.

The residence of the person addressed should be plainly written out in full. The street and numbers should be given and the city or town written very legibly. If the abbreviation of the State is liable to be confounded or confused with that of another then the full name of the State should be written. In writing the residence on the envelope, instead of putting it all in one line as is done at the head of a letter, each item of the residence forms a separate line. Thus,

Liberty,

 

Sullivan County, New York.

 

215 Minna St.,

 

San Francisco,

 

California.

There should be left a space for the postage stamp in the upper right hand corner. The name and title should occupy a line that is about central between the top of the envelope and the bottom. The name should neither be too much to right or left but located in the centre, the beginning and end at equal distances from either end.

In writing to large business concerns which are well known or to public or city officials it is sometimes customary to leave out number and street. Thus,
Messrs. Seigel, Cooper Co.,

New York City,

 

Hon. William J. Gaynor, New York City.

 

NOTES

_Notes_ may be regarded as letters in miniature confined chiefly to invitations, acceptances, regrets and introductions, and modern etiquette tends towards informality in their composition. Card etiquette, in fact, has taken the place of ceremonious correspondence and informal notes are now the rule. Invitations to dinner and receptions are now mostly written on cards. "Regrets" are sent back on visiting cards with just the one word _"Regrets"_ plainly written thereon. Often on cards and notes of invitation we find the letters R. S. V. P. at the bottom. These letters stand for the French _repondez s'il vous plait_, which means "Reply, if you please," but there is no necessity to put this on an invitation card as every well-bred person knows that a reply is expected. In writing notes to young ladies of the same family it should be noted that the eldest daughter of the house is entitled to the designation _Miss_ without any Christian name, only the surname appended. Thus if there are three daughters in the Thompson family Martha, the eldest, Susan and Jemina, Martha is addressed as _Miss_ Thompson and the other two as _Miss_ Susan Thompson and _Miss_ Jemina Thompson respectively.

Don't write the word _addressed_ on the envelope of a note.

 

Don't _seal_ a note delivered by a friend.

 

Don't write a note on a postal card.

 

Here are a few common forms:--

 

FORMAL INVITATIONS

Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wagstaff request the honor of Mr. McAdoo's presence on Friday evening, June 15th, at 8 o'clock to meet the Governor of the Fort.

19 Woodbine Terrace

 

June 8th, 1910.

 

This is an invitation to a formal reception calling for evening dress. Here is Mr. McAdoo's reply in the third person:--

Mr. McAdoo presents his compliments to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Wagstaff and accepts with great pleasure their invitation to meet the Governor of the Fort on the evening of June fifteenth.

215 Beacon Street,

 

June 10th, 1910.

 

Here is how Mr. McAdoo might decline the invitation:--

Mr. McAdoo regrets that owing to a prior engagement he must forego the honor of paying his respects to Mr. and Mrs. Wagstaff and the Governor of the Fort on the evening of June fifteenth.

215 Beacon St.,

 

June 10th, 1910.

 

Here is a note addressed, say to Mr. Jeremiah Reynolds.

Mr. and Mrs. Oldham at home on Wednesday evening October ninth from seven to eleven.
21 Ashland Avenue,
October 5th.

Mr. Reynolds makes reply:--

Mr. Reynolds accepts with high appreciation the honor of Mr. and Mrs. Oldham's invitation for Wednesday evening October ninth.

Windsor Hotel

 

October 7th

 

or

Mr. Reynolds regrets that his duties render it impossible for him to accept Mr. and Mrs. Oldham's kind invitation for the evening of October ninth.

Windsor Hotel,

 

October 7th,

 

Sometimes less informal invitations are sent on small specially designed note paper in which the first person takes the place of the third. Thus

 

360 Pine St.,

 

Dec. 11th, 1910.

Dear Mr. Saintsbury:
Mr. Johnson and I should be much pleased to
have you dine with us and a few friends next
Thursday, the fifteenth, at half past seven. Yours sincerely,
Emma Burnside.

Mr. Saintsbury's reply:

 

57 Carlyle Strand Dec. 13th, 1910.

Dear Mrs. Burnside:
Let me accept very appreciatively your
invitation to dine with Mr. Burnside and you
on next Thursday, the fifteenth, at half past
seven.
Yours sincerely, Henry Saintsbury.
Mrs. Alexander Burnside.

NOTES OF INTRODUCTION

Notes of introduction should be very circumspect as the writers are in reality vouching for those whom they introduce. Here is a specimen of such a note.

603 Lexington Ave., New York City, June 15th, 1910.

Rev. Cyrus C. Wiley, D. D.,
Newark, N. J.
My dear Dr. Wiley:
I take the liberty of
presenting to you my friend, Stacy Redfern,
M. D., a young practitioner, who is anxious
to locate in Newark. I have known him many
years and can vouch for his integrity and
professional standing. Any courtesy and
kindness which you may show him will be very
much appreciated by me.
Very sincerely yours,
Franklin Jewett.

CHAPTER VII

 

ERRORS

Mistakes--Slips of Authors--Examples and Corrections--Errors of Redundancy. In the following examples the word or words in parentheses are uncalled for and should be omitted:

1. Fill the glass (full).

 

2. They appeared to be talking (together) on private affairs.

 

3. I saw the boy and his sister (both) in the garden.

 

4. He went into the country last week and returned (back) yesterday.

 

5. The subject (matter) of his discourse was excellent.

 

6. You need not wonder that the (subject) matter of his discourse was excellent; it was taken from the Bible.

 

7. They followed (after) him, but could not overtake him.

 

8. The same sentiments may be found throughout (the whole of) the book.

 

9. I was very ill every day (of my life) last week.

 

10. That was the (sum and) substance of his discourse.

 

11. He took wine and water and mixed them (both) together.

 

12. He descended (down) the steps to the cellar.

 

13. He fell (down) from the top of the house.

 

14. I hope you will return (again) soon.

 

15. The things he took away he restored (again).

 

16. The thief who stole my watch was compelled to restore it (back again).

 

17. It is equally (the same) to me whether I have it today or tomorrow.

 

18. She said, (says she) the report is false; and he replied, (says he) if it be not correct I have been misinformed.

 

19. I took my place in the cars (for) to go to New York.

 

20. They need not (to) call upon him.

 

21. Nothing (else) but that would satisfy him.

22. Whenever I ride in the cars I (always) find it prejudicial to my health.
23. He was the first (of all) at the meeting.

24. He was the tallest of (all) the brothers.

 

25. You are the tallest of (all) your family.

 

26. Whenever I pass the house he is (always) at the door.

 

27. The rain has penetrated (through) the roof.

 

28. Besides my uncle and aunt there was (also) my grandfather at the church.

 

29. It should (ever) be your constant endeavor to please your family.

 

30. If it is true as you have heard (then) his situation is indeed pitiful.

 

31. Either this (here) man or that (there) woman has (got) it.

 

32. Where is the fire (at)?

 

33. Did you sleep in church? Not that I know (of).

 

34. I never before (in my life) met (with) such a stupid man.

 

35. (For) why did he postpone it?

 

36. Because (why) he could not attend.

 

37. What age is he? (Why) I don't know.

 

38. He called on me (for) to ask my opinion.

 

39. I don't know where I am (at).

 

40. I looked in (at) the window.

 

41. I passed (by) the house.

 

42. He (always) came every Sunday.

 

43. Moreover, (also) we wish to say he was in error.

 

44. It is not long (ago) since he was here.

 

45. Two men went into the wood (in order) to cut (down) trees.

Further examples of redundancy might be multiplied. It is very common in newspaper writing where not alone single words but entire phrases are sometimes brought in, which are unnecessary to the sense or explanation of what is written.

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS OF STANDARD AUTHORS

Even the best speakers and writers are sometimes caught napping. Many of our standard authors to whom we have been accustomed to look up as infallible have sinned more or less against the fundamental principles of grammar by breaking the rules regarding one or more of the nine parts of speech. In fact some of them have recklessly trespassed against all nine, and still they sit on their pedestals of fame for the admiration of the crowd. Macaulay mistreated the article. He wrote,--"That _a_ historian should not record trifles is perfectly true." He should have used _an_.

Dickens also used the article incorrectly. He refers to "Robinson Crusoe" as "_an_ universally popular book," instead of _a_ universally popular book.

The relation between nouns and pronouns has always been a stumbling block to speakers and writers. Hallam in his _Literature of Europe_ writes, "No one as yet had exhibited the structure of the human kidneys, Vesalius having only examined them in dogs." This means that Vesalius examined human kidneys in dogs. The sentence should have been, "No one had as yet exhibited the kidneys in human beings, Vesalius having examined such organs in dogs only."

Sir Arthur Helps in writing of Dickens, states--"I knew a brother author of his who received such criticisms from him (Dickens) very lately and profited by _it_." Instead of _it_ the word should be _them_ to agree with criticisms.

Here are a few other pronominal errors from leading authors:

 

"Sir Thomas Moore in general so writes it, although not many others so late as _him_." Should be _he_.--Trench's _English Past and Present_.

 

"What should we gain by it but that we should speedily become as poor as _them_." Should be _they_.--Alison's _Essay on Macaulay_.

"If the king gives us leave you or I may as lawfully preach, as _them_ that do." Should be _they_ or _those_, the latter having persons understood.--Hobbes's _History of Civil Wars_.

"The drift of all his sermons was, to prepare the Jews for the reception of a prophet, mightier than _him_, and whose shoes he was not worthy to bear." Should be than _he_.--Atterbury's _Sermons_.

"Phalaris, who was so much older than _her_." Should be _she_.--Bentley's _Dissertation on Phalaris_.
"King Charles, and more than _him_, the duke and the Popish faction were at liberty to form new schemes." Should be than _he_.--Bolingbroke's _Dissertations on Parties_.

"We contributed a third more than the Dutch, who were obliged to the same proportion more than _us_." Should be than _we_.--Swift's _Conduct of the Allies_.

In all the above examples the objective cases of the pronouns have been used while the construction calls for nominative cases.

 

"Let _thou_ and _I_ the battle try"--_Anon_.

Here _let_ is the governing verb and requires an objective case after it; therefore instead of _thou_ and _I_, the words should be _you_ (_sing_.) and _me_.

"Forever in this humble cell, Let thee and I, my fair one, dwell"

 

--_Prior_.

 

Here _thee_ and _I_ should be the objectives _you_ and _me_.

 

The use of the relative pronoun trips the greatest number of authors.

 

Even in the Bible we find the relative wrongly translated:

 

Whom do men say that I am?--_St. Matthew_.

 

Whom think ye that I am?--_Acts of the Apostles_.

_Who_ should be written in both cases because the word is not in the objective governed by say or think, but in the nominative dependent on the verb _am_.

"_Who_ should I meet at the coffee house t'other night, but my old friend?"--_Steele_.

"It is another pattern of this answerer's fair dealing, to give us hints that the author is dead, and yet lay the suspicion upon somebody, I know not _who_, in the country."--Swift's _Tale of a Tub_.

"My son is going to be married to I don't know _who_."--Goldsmith's _Good-natured Man_.

 

The nominative _who_ in the above examples should be the objective _whom_.

 

The plural nominative _ye_ of the pronoun _thou_ is very often used for the objective _you_, as in the following:

 

"His wrath which will one day destroy _ye both_."--_Milton_.

 

"The more shame for _ye_; holy men I thought _ye_."--_Shakespeare_.

 

"I feel the gales that from _ye_ blow."--_Gray_.

 

"Tyrants dread _ye_, lest your just decree Transfer the power and set the people free."--_Prior_.

 

Many of the great writers have played havoc with the adjective in the indiscriminate use of the degrees of comparison.

 

"Of two forms of the same word, use the fittest."--_Morell_.

 

The author here in _trying_ to give good advice sets a bad example. He should have used the comparative degree, "Fitter."

Adjectives which have a comparative or superlative signification do not admit the addition of the words _more_, _most_, or the terminations, _er_, _est_, hence the following examples break this rule:

"Money is the _most universal_ incitement of human misery."--Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_.

 

"The _chiefest_ of which was known by the name of Archon among the Grecians."--Dryden's _Life of Plutarch_.

 

"The _chiefest_ and largest are removed to certain magazines they call libraries."--Swift's _Battle of the Books_.

 

The two _chiefest_ properties of air, its gravity and elastic force, have been discovered by mechanical experiments.--_Arbuthno_.

"From these various causes, which in greater or _lesser_ degree, affected every individual in the colony, the indignation of the people became general."--Robertson's _History of America_.

"The _extremest_ parts of the earth were meditating a submission."

 

--Atterbury's _Sermons_.

 

"The last are indeed _more preferable_ because they are founded on some new knowledge or improvement in the mind of man."--Addison, _Spectator_.

 

"This was in reality the _easiest_ manner of the two."--Shaftesbury's _Advice to an Author_.

 

"In every well formed mind this second desire seems to be the _strongest_ of the two."--Smith's _Theory of Moral Sentiments_.

 

In these examples the superlative is wrongly used for the comparative. When only two objects are compared the comparative form must be used.

 

Of impossibility there are no degrees of comparison, yet we find the following:

"As it was impossible they should know the words, thoughts and secret actions of all men, so it was _more impossible_ they should pass judgment on them according to these things."--Whitby's _Necessity of the Christian Religion_.

A great number of authors employ adjectives for adverbs. Thus we find:

 

"I shall endeavor to live hereafter _suitable_ to a man in my station."

 

--_Addison_.

 

"I can never think so very _mean_ of him."--Bentley's _Dissertation on Phalaris_.

 

"His expectations run high and the fund to supply them is _extreme_ scanty."--_Lancaster's Essay on Delicacy_.

The commonest error in the use of the verb is the disregard of the concord between the verb and its subject. This occurs most frequently when the subject and the verb are widely separated, especially if some other noun of a different number immediately precedes the verb. False concords occur very often after _either_, _or_, _neither_, _nor_, and _much_, _more_, _many_, _everyone_, _each_.

Here are a few authors' slips:--

 

"The terms in which the sale of a patent _were_ communicated to the public."--Junius's _Letters_.

 

"The richness of her arms and apparel _were_ conspicuous."--Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_.

 

"Everyone of this grotesque family _were_ the creatures of national genius."--D'Israeli.

 

"He knows not what spleen, languor or listlessness _are_."--Blair's _Sermons_.

 

"Each of these words _imply_, some pursuit or object relinquished."

 

--_Ibid_.

 

"Magnus, with four thousand of his supposed accomplices _were_ put to death."--_Gibbon_.

 

"No nation gives greater encouragements to learning than we do; yet at the same time _none are_ so injudicious in the application."

 

--_Goldsmith_.

 

"_There's two_ or _three_ of us have seen strange sights."--_Shakespeare_.

The past participle should not be used for the past tense, yet the learned Byron overlooked this fact. He thus writes in the _Lament of Tasso_:--

"And with my years my soul _begun to pant_ With feelings of strange tumult and soft pain."

 

Here is another example from Savage's _Wanderer_ in which there is double sinning:

 

"From liberty each nobler science _sprung_, A Bacon brighten'd and a Spenser _sung_."

 

Other breaches in regard to the participles occur in the following:--

 

"Every book ought to be read with the same spirit and in the same manner as it is _writ_"--Fielding's _Tom Jones_.

 

"The Court of Augustus had not _wore_ off the manners of the republic"

 

--Hume's _Essays_.

 

"Moses tells us that the fountains of the earth were _broke_ open or clove asunder."--Burnet.

 

"A free constitution when it has been _shook_ by the iniquity of former administrations."--_Bolingbroke_.

 

"In this respect the seeds of future divisions were _sowed_ abundantly."

 

--_Ibid_.

 

In the following example the present participle is used for the infinitive mood:

 

"It is easy _distinguishing_ the rude fragment of a rock from the splinter of a statue."--Gilfillan's _Literary Portraits_.

 

_Distinguishing_ here should be replaced by _to distinguish_.

 

The rules regarding _shall_ and _will_ are violated in the following:

 

"If we look within the rough and awkward outside, we _will_ be richly rewarded by its perusal."--Gilfillan's _Literary Portraits_.

"If I _should_ declare them and speak of them, they should be more than I am able to express."--_Prayer Book Revision of Psalms XI_. "If I _would_ declare them and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered."--_Ibid_.

"Without having attended to this, we _will_ be at a loss, in understanding several passages in the classics."--Blair's _Lectures_.

"We know to what cause our past reverses have been owing and _we_ will have ourselves to blame, if they are again incurred."--Alison's _History of Europe_.

Adverbial mistakes often occur in the best writers. The adverb _rather_ is a word very frequently misplaced. Archbishop Trench in his "English Past and Present" writes, "It _rather_ modified the structure of our sentences than the elements of our vocabulary." This should have been written,--"It modified the structure of our sentences _rather than_ the elements of our vocabulary."

"So far as his mode of teaching goes he is _rather_ a disciple of Socrates than of St. Paul or Wesley." Thus writes Leslie Stephens of Dr. Johnson. He should have written,--" So far as his mode of teaching goes he is a disciple of Socrates _rather_ than of St. Paul or Wesley."

The preposition is a part of speech which is often wrongly used by some of the best writers. Certain nouns, adjectives and verbs require particular prepositions after them, for instance, the word _different_ always takes the preposition _from_ after it; _prevail_ takes _upon_; _averse_ takes _to_; _accord_ takes _with_, and so on.

In the following examples the prepositions in parentheses are the ones that should have been used:

 

"He found the greatest difficulty _of_ (in) writing."--Hume's _History of England_.

 

"If policy can prevail _upon_ (over) force."--_Addison_.

 

"He made the discovery and communicated _to_ (with) his friends."

 

--Swift's _