The Verbalist Part 22

WAS. "He said he had come to the conclusion that there _was_ no G.o.d."

"The greatest of Byron's works _was_ his whole work taken together."--Matthew Arnold. What is true at all times should be expressed by using the verb in the present tense. The sentences above should read _is_, not _was_.

WHARF. See DOCK.

WHAT. "He would not believe but _what_ I did it": read, but _that_. "I do not doubt _but what_ I shall go to Boston to-morrow": read, doubt _that_. We say properly, "I have nothing _but what_ you see"; "You have brought everything _but what_ I wanted."

WHENCE. As this adverb means--unaided--_from_ what place, source, or cause, it is, as Dr. Johnson styled it, "a vicious mode of speech" to say _from whence_, Milton to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor is there any more propriety in the phrase _from thence_, as _thence_ means--unaided--from that place. "_Whence_ do you come?" not "_From whence_ do you come?" Likewise, "He went _hence_," not "_from hence_."

WHETHER. This conjunction is often improperly repeated in a sentence; thus, "I have not decided whether I shall go to Boston or _whether I shall go_ to Philadelphia."

WHICH. This p.r.o.noun as an _interrogative_ applies to _persons_ as well as to _things_; as a _relative_, it is now made to refer to _things only_.

"_Which_ is employed in coordinate sentences, where _it_, or _they_, and a conjunction might answer the purpose; thus, 'At school I studied geometry, _which_ (and it) I found useful afterward.' Here the new clause is something independent added to the previous clause, and not limiting that clause in any way. So in the adjectival clause; as, 'He struck the poor dog, _which_ (and it, or although it) had never done him harm.' Such instances represent the most accurate meaning of _which_.

_Who_ and _which_ might be termed the COoRDINATING RELATIVES.

"_Which_ is likewise used in _restrictive_ clauses that limit or explain the antecedent; as, 'The house _which_ he built still remains.' Here the clause introduced by _which_ specifies, or points out, the house that is the subject of the statement, namely, by the circ.u.mstance that a certain person built it. As remarked with regard to _who_, our most idiomatic writers prefer _that_ in this particular application, and would say, 'The house _that_ he built still remains.'"

"_Which_ sometimes has a special reference attaching to it, as the neuter relative: 'Caesar crossed the Rubicon, _which_ was in effect a declaration of war.' The antecedent in this instance is not _Rubicon_, but the entire clause.

"There is a peculiar usage where _which_ may _seem_ to be still regularly used in reference to persons, as in 'John is a soldier, _which_ I should like to be,' that is, 'And I should like _to be a soldier_.'" See THAT.

WHO. There are few persons, even among the most cultivated, who do not make frequent mistakes in the use of this p.r.o.noun. They say, "_Who_ did you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ did you hear?" "_Who_ did he know?" "_Who_ are you writing to?" "_Who_ are you looking at?" In all these sentences the interrogative p.r.o.noun is in the objective case, and should be used in the objective form, which is _whom_, and not _who_. To show that these sentences are not correct, and are not defensible by supposing any ellipsis whatsoever, we have only to put the questions in another form. Take the first one, and, instead of "Who did you see?" say, "Who saw you?" which, if correct, justifies us in saying, "Who knew he," which is the equivalent of "Who did he know?"

But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly not correct, since it says directly the opposite of what is intended.

_Who_ was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth century.

Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books, _who_ is frequently employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man _who_ spoke to us yesterday.'"

"Here the clause introduced by _who_ is necessary to define or explain the antecedent _the man_; without it, we do not know who _the man_ is.

Such relative clauses are typical _adjective_ clauses--i. e., they have the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the RESTRICTIVE use of the relative.

"Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers and speakers is to prefer _that_ to _who_ in this application.

"_Who_ is properly used in such coordinate sentences as, 'I met the watchman, _who_ told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; in such a case, _and he_ might be subst.i.tuted for _who_.

"Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolve _who_ into a personal or demonstrative p.r.o.noun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles, _who_ (_for he_, _seeing that he_) knows nothing of the matter?'

"_Who_ may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with _whom_. For many good writers and speakers say '_who_ are you talking of?' '_who_ does the garden belong to?' '_who_ is this for?' '_who_ from?'" etc.

If this be true--if _who may_ be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with _whom_--then, of course, such expressions as "_Who_ did you see?" "_Who_ did you meet?" "_Who_ did he marry?" "_Who_ were you with?" "_Who_ will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one will dispute; but that they are _correct_, few grammarians will concede. See THAT.

WHOLE. This word is sometimes most improperly used for _all_; thus, "The _whole_ Germans seem to be saturated with the belief that they are really the greatest people on earth, and that they would be universally recognized as being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest."

"The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is to conquer the world."--Alison.

WHOLESOME. See HEALTHY.

WHOSE. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of _whose_ as the possessive of _which_. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, use _of which_ instead of _whose_." The correctness of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the possessive case of _which_ that in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to _of which_. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive of _who_ is properly _whose_. The p.r.o.noun _which_, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This was supplied, in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the possessive of _who_, and thus have subst.i.tuted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, _whose_ end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for 'Philosophy, _the_ end _of which_ is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use."

Professor Bain says: "_Whose_, although the possessive of _who_, and practically of _which_, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those faults _whose_ deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is better than 'the deformity _of which_ we have seen.' 'Propositions of _whose_ truth we have no certain knowledge.'--Locke." Dr. Fitzedward Hall says that the use of _whose_ for _of which_, where the antecedent is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high authority for several hundred years.

WIDOW WOMAN. Since widows are always women, why say a widow _woman_? It would be perfectly correct to say a _widowed_ woman.

WIDOWHOOD. There is good authority for using this word in speaking of men as well as of women.

WITHOUT. This word is often improperly used instead of _unless_; as, "You will never live to my age _without_ you keep yourself in breath and exercise"; "I shall not go _without_ my father consents": properly, _unless_ my father consents, or, _without_ my father's consent.

WORST. We should say _at the worst_, not _at worst_.

WOVE. The past participle of the verb _to weave_ is _woven_. "Where was this cloth _woven_?" not _wove_.

YOU ARE MISTAKEN. See MISTAKEN.

YOU WAS. Good usage does, and it is to be hoped always will, consider _you was_ a gross vulgarism, certain grammarians to the contrary notwithstanding. _You_ is the form of the p.r.o.noun in the second person plural, and must, if we would speak correctly, be used with the corresponding form of the verb. The argument that we use _you_ in the singular number is so nonsensical that it does not merit a moment's consideration. It is a custom we have--and have in common with other peoples--to speak to one another in the second person plural, and that is all there is of it. The Germans speak to one another in the _third_ person plural. The exact equivalent in German of our _How are you?_ is, _How are they?_ Those who would say _you was_ should be consistent, and in like manner say _you has_ and _you does_.

YOURS, &C. The ignorant and obtuse not unfrequently profess themselves at the bottom of their letters "Yours, &c." And so forth! forth what?

Few vulgarisms are equally offensive, and none could be more so. In printing correspondence, the newspapers often content themselves with this short-hand way of intimating that the writer's name was preceded by some one of the familiar forms of ending letters; this an occasional dunderhead seems to think is sufficient authority for writing himself, _Yours, &c._

THE END.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] If this is true in England, it is not true in America. Nowhere in the United States is such "questionable grammar" as this frequently heard in cultivated circles.

[2] "It may be confidently affirmed that with good speakers, in the case of negation, _not me_ is the usual practice."--Bain. This, I confidently affirm, is not true in America.--A. A.

[3] Should be, _a text-book for his course_, and not, _for his course a text-book_.

[4] Mr. Gould criticises the Dean's _diction_, not his _style_.

[5] Better, "to revise it."

[6] "Is _to put them_ in tabular form."

[7] Bullions' "Grammar" was published in 1867.

[8] "L. W. K., CLK., LL. D., EX. SCH., T. C., D. Of this reverend gentleman's personality I know nothing. He does not say exactly what he means; but what he means is, yet, unmistakable. The extract given above is from 'Public Opinion,' January 20, 1866."

[9] "The a.n.a.lysis, taken for granted in this quotation, of 'are being thrown up' into 'are being' and 'thrown up' will be dealt with in the sequel, and shown to be untenable."

[10] "Vol. xlv, p. 504 (1837)."

[11] "'The Life and Correspondence of the late Robert Southey,' vol. i, p. 249."

[12] "Vol. i, p. 338. 'A student who _is being crammed_'; 'that verb is eternally _being declined_.'--'The Doctor,' pp. 38 and 40 (mono-tome ed.)."

[13] "In 'Put Yourself in his Place,' chapter x, he writes: 'She basked in the present delight, and looked as if she _was being taken_ to heaven by an angel.'"

[14] "'Words,' etc., p. 340."