"In other circumstances he could say much that was disagreeable." Was is wrong. Could is here past subjunctive referring to present time and implying that he does not say it. The proper sequence is that would be, or that is.

INFINITIVE. The perfect infinitive indicates events occurring prior to the time of the main verb; as "He seems to have enjoyed his visit"; "When we met him, he seemed to have already recovered strength." For action not prior to the time of the main verb, the present infinitive is used; as "He seemed to be enjoying the game"; "I hope to go tomorrow"; "He seems to be prosperous."

With verbs having the same form for present and past, the perfect infinitive performs a useful function. "He ought to go" means "It is his duty to go"; "He ought to have gone means "It was his duty to go."

The expression "I intended to have gone" has been denounced as an error, because the act of going is not prior to the intention. It has been defended as a brief way of indicating an intention unfulfilled. "I intended to have gone yesterday " implies "but I did not go, could not," etc. In sentences like "He would have been ready to have gone," and "Had he intended to have gone, he would have told us," to go is sufficient, since the fact of his not going is otherwise indicated. In "All the details of his past were matters on which he had seemed to take an oath to Harpocrates, the god of silence," read "he seemed to have taken."

SUBJUNCTIVE. In ordinary prose many of the subjunctive forms are becoming obsolete. But we say regularly "If he were here, he would tell us": was is incorrect. So "I wish he were here"; "He speaks as if he were sure of winning.” Note the difference in meaning between "If he was there yesterday, he must have seen it," and "If he were there now, he would see it." The first assumes his presence as a fact: the second puts it as a mere supposition, which may imply that he is not present.

SHALL AND WILL. The following expressions are incorrect: "If we run fast, we will be in time"; "I will be sixteen on

Thursday"; "Perhaps I will not be there"; "I will be in suspense till you return." Instead of will, the shall of simple futurity is required; for the speaker's determination or intention is not taken into account. But it is correct to say "I will not be satisfied with fewer than sixty," since my determination is expressed. "I hope I will be able" should be "I hope I shall": the hope is not about my willingness but about my future ability.

The unidiomatic will in the following should be shall: “Will I go?"; "Will we go?"; "When will I be paid?”; “I wish to know when I will be paid." In these will seems to ask others about one's own will. But where an answer echoes a question, will is correct. "Will you do it?' said John. 'Will I?' said James, 'I should think so.””

“If we ran fast, we would be in time"; "I would like to see you"; "I said I would be in suspense till he came." Should is the correct form.

GERUND OR PARTICIPLE. (1) "Carefully carrying his rifle, he neared the sentry." (2) "His laying down the rifle surprised us. (3) "A discussion lasting only forty minutes is useless." (4) "We are surprised at the debate lasting so long."

"

In (1) and (3) the -ing forms are clearly participles: in (2) it is as clearly a gerund. In (4), though it is participial in form and construction, it has a gerundial force: i.e. the meaning is not "at the debate which lasts" or "while it lasts," but "at the fact that the debate has lasted." Some writers would put debate's and make the construction a formal gerund; but usage varies and there is good authority for omitting the sign of the possessive in such expressions. But when the word before the -ing form is a pronoun or a noun that readily makes a possessive, it is advisable to use my, his, man's, soldier's or whatever form is required; as "His deciding so quickly astonished us"; "The conjuror's vanishing through the side door baulked his opponent." With nouns or phrases where the possessive case would be unusual or clumsy, it need not be employed; as "The firemen worked strenuously for fear of the conflagration spreading." The construction may

be avoided by saying "for fear that the conflagration should spread."

"On

No noun or pronoun is required before the gerund, when the gerund is used indefinitely, as "It is a hard thing to have been for twenty years on the very verge of starving, without ever being starved"; or when the reference of the gerund is clear, as entering the room, we were greeted with applause"; "It was my mistake in not coming sooner." If, however, there is any chance of ambiguity, insert the word or change the construction. “On entering, the guests already seated rose up" should be "On our entering, the guests" etc., or "As we entered." "By allowing three inches for the wind, the target cannot be missed" should be "By our (your, one's) allowing," or "By allowing...we cannot miss," or "If we allow."

PREPOSITIONS: CONJUNCTIONS: ADVERBS. It is often difficult to know which is the idiomatic preposition after certain nouns, adjectives and verbs. Rules are of little use, or none. The best way is diligently to observe the usage of good speakers and writers.

Some constructions are disputed, e.g. is it to be from or to after different and averse? On the whole it is safest to say different from not different to; but averse to not averse from. Interchange the prepositions in the following: "This animated recitation was different to mere speech"; "England was still averse from a return of the Stuarts."

Say prefer to, not prefer than, or prefer rather than. "He prefers to go rather than to stay" may be corrected in two ways: either "He prefers going to staying," or "He would rather go than stay."

Note the difference in meaning between consist in and consist of; and between correspond to and correspond with. We say dependent on but independent of; to share in or participate in but to partake of. Between is used of two objects, among of more than two. To not than follows inferior and superior, prior and posterior.

Seldom or never and seldom if ever are both correct: seldom or ever is incorrect. When not than follows scarcely: than not but follows no sooner; as "Scarcely had he appeared when a cry arose"; "No sooner had he appeared than a cry arose." Nobody but John and no other than John are right: no other but John is wrong.

Like and without are not conjunctions. "He will not come without he is invited" should be "unless he is invited." "John speaks like him" is correct: "John speaks like he does" is incorrect. To emend "You feel like we felt when we first stepped on board," either change like to as, or omit felt and change we to us. "She was fond of sport and fun like he" should be "Like him, she was fond of sport and fun."

A superfluous but often appears after doubt not; as "I do not doubt but that he will arrive safe."

Also is erroneously used as merely equivalent to and. Instead of "They provided him with boots and stockings, also a hat" "boots and stockings, and also a hat" or "and a hat."

"He tried to do it and "He tried and did it" are both correct, with a difference of meaning; but it is wrong to put try and for try to, as in "They will try and come next week."

The use of certain adverbs as qualifiers of nouns is well authorized e.g. "the down train," "in after ages.' But unauthorized uses are to be avoided. Note that while "the house here" is allowable, "this here house" is not.

MISCELLANEOUS BLUNDERS. "To move just as fast, and not any faster, than the inclination of her heart.". Too elliptical; as requires as following: "To move as fast as, and not any faster than, the inclination." Or change the order: "To move as fast as the inclination of her heart, and not any faster." This allows us to omit than.

"I could not help but think so" is a faulty mixture of "I could not help thinking so" and "I could not but think so." Note the idiomatic "Give no more than you can help" with the sense of "Give no more than you must." But "You can help giving"

equals "You need not give," while "You cannot help giving" is what equals "You must give." We have then in the idiomatic expression an illogical omission of not. But idioms are often illogical.

"The Czar has not, and probably will not, take so strong a line." Wrong; has must be followed by taken: "has not taken, and probably will not take."

"The owners received a telegram stating that the Milwaukee went ashore this morning and to send two tugs to take her off.” To send is used as if stating were a verb of asking.

N.B.-These violations of syntax and idiom are often termed

solecisms.

EXERCISES

III. Point out and correct faulty constructions in the following:

1. They are going to some swell's or another.

2. The House of Representatives adopted Mr Seddon's, the Premier, proposals.

3. Why should his views be of more importance than mine or the Pope's or the Grand Lama of Thibet?

4. Silently I left Kitty's (my friend's name) house.

5. "John," she cried, " come to me, dearest husband, mia carissima, come."

6. Farewell, my darling sister, my Fidus Achates, my alter ego. 7. Prominent among the diplomatists was the Chinese Minister, the Turkish Ambassador, and the United States Ambassador. The latter was not the least conspicuous.

8. The last refer you to Swift as a model of English prose, the former prefer the more sparkling periods of Junius or Gibbon.

9. Shakespeare was the least of an egotist of anybody in the world.

10. Boswell's Life of Johnson is better than any biography in English.

II. Of all the other English dramatists Shakespeare is the best. 12. That relation is the least interesting of all the others.

13. Bass! I believe you, for he can go lower down than any singer.

14. An exceeding small amount is necessary.