1. Where did you say St. Peter’s was?

1. Where did you say St. Peter’s was?

2. Is it warm out of doors? I should say it was.

3. I fully intended to have met you at the concert.

=Government.=

1. “He invited him and _I_,” is not an unheard-of blunder. People often needlessly shrink from saying a correct sentence like this—“He invited him and me”—and will even insert the full names of _him_ and _me_ rather than out with the right case of the pronoun.

2. In asking a question, think whether _who_ or _whom_ is required. “_Whom_ did you see?” but, “_Who_ was it that you saw?”

3. _Let_ governs the objective case, quite as any other active verb. “Let John and me go.”

4. An error often occurs in the case of the relative after a verb of saying, thinking, telling, and the like. “Franklin’s Autobiography is the work of a man _whom_ I should think would be known to every American.” The _whom_ is wrong for _who_. Had the writer set off “I should think” by commas, he would have seen the mistake.

5. How should the following newspaper sentence be corrected? “He stated that the offering was $101,500, an amount upon which he would stake his honor would all be paid up.”

=On the Reference of Pronouns.=

1. In the use of pronouns one cannot be too careful that each refers to the right person. “Farmer Jones called on his neighbor and told him that his cows were in his pasture,” leaves us in doubt whether Farmer Jones came to make a complaint or an apology. How should the sentence be constructed to remove the ambiguity? The following delicious error has been much quoted: “If fresh milk does not seem to agree with the child, boil it.” How change the sentence to save the child’s life?

2. Sometimes a demonstrative can be used to better advantage than a personal pronoun. “They lent us their horses for the afternoon and these [not _they_] took us a long way out into the country.”

3. Sometimes it is better to repeat the antecedent, varying it by simple synonyms, than to use any pronoun. Not, “He gave him his word of honor, that whenever he should see his brother in London, he would do all for him that he ought to do for an old comrade’s brother.” Rather thus: “He gave his friend his word of honor, that whenever he should see the latter’s brother in London, he would do for the boy all that a man ought to do for the brother of an old comrade.”

4. Acquire a habit of writing, “It is he,” or “It’s he,” instead of “He is the one.” This latter phrase is permissible in colloquial speech, where its clumsiness is not much felt. The correct expression may sometimes seem over-precise. But a person of tact ought to be able to speak correctly without seeming affected.

=Conjunctions and Prepositions.=

1. Shall we say “as large as,” “not as large as,” etc.? The first expression is right. But after a negative, use _so_ for a correlative to _as_: “not _so_ large as.”

2. In general be careful not to omit necessary conjunctions. What should be supplied in the following sentence? and how should the order be changed? “Henty is better known but not so interesting to older boys as Stevenson.”

3. _And which_, _and who_, etc., are wrong for _which_, _who_, etc., when no relative has previously been used. Correct the following: “Irving, the historian, and whom we honor as our first writer of prose tales, is a prime favorite of us all.”

4. _Like_ is not a conjunction. It is incorrect to say, “Do like I do.” This wrong use of _like_ is habitual in many parts of our country, and a native of any one of these districts has to watch himself narrowly to acquire the habit of using _as_ for _like_. It is, however, correct enough to say, “She talks _like him_.” Here _like_ is an adjective governing what was the dative case, and the phrase _like him_ has the value of an adverb.

5. _Different to_ is wrong for _different from_. This error, though rarely to be found in America, is habitual in England. The commoner American error is _different than_. This mistake frequently occurs when the comparative degree has previously been used. _E.g._ “This last kind of apple is different and sweeter than the first.” The better form is: “This last kind of apple is different from the first, and sweeter.” _Do not split the particles_, by saying, “This kind of apple is different from and sweeter than the first.”

=Adverb or Adjective?=

1. There is a group of words—verbs of sensation and the like, _look_, _sound_, _feel_, _smell_, _taste_, _appear_, _seem_—which take an adjective to complete their meaning. “She looks _sweet_,” “It tastes _sweet_,” “She _seems_ happy,” are common and correct ways of speaking. _Notice that here something of the same idea can be given by saying_, “She _is_ sweet,” “It _is_ sweet,” “She _is_ happy.” The _sweet_ idea or the _happy_ idea describes the subject, the person, not the verb. Of course, one might write a sentence in which the _sweet_ idea would tell the way a given act was done. “She looked sweetly” would imply that she was gazing sweetly at something or somebody.

But here must be noted an exception or two. (_a_) The word _bad_ has two senses: moral badness, and badness that is not moral—badness of health, for instance. If I say “I feel bad,” the bad seems to mean moral badness: _i.e._ “I _am_ bad.” It is therefore permissible to break the rule and apply _badly_ to physical feeling. “I feel badly” is a common expression for “I feel sick”; and by the exception to the rule is correct. Which is better in the following sentence—_bad_ or _badly_? “It sounds —— to hear a young man swear.” (_b_) There are a few cases where the adverb is retained when the verb is not felt as acting. “The report sounds well,” certainly does not mean that the report is in good health; but it is certainly good English. Similarly we have: “She appears well in company.”

It is to be kept in mind that _ill_ and _well_ are not always adverbs. They are often adjectives; and if one says “I feel ill,” or “I feel well,” one is using the adjective _ill_ or the adjective _well_.

=Oral Exercise.=—Which of the italicized words is preferable in the following sentences? (_a_) “This old stern-wheel boat rides over the waves quite as _easy_ (_easily_) as any propeller, if not _easier_ (_more easily_).” (_b_) “This old chaise rides as _easy_ (_easily_) as any modern one.” (_c_) “An old shoe feels _easy_ (_easily_).” (_d_) “As Billings read that passage it sounded _different_ (_differently_) from the way in which the Colonel read it.” (_e_) “Do you feel _good_ (_well_) after your night’s rest?” (_f_) “I’ve been to church and, for me, really feel _good_ (_well_).” (_g_) “He voted _independently_ (_independent_).” (_h_) “Home, sweet home” sounds _well_ (_good_) to the ears of the American abroad.

=Shall or Will.=—Most Americans, like most Scotchmen, use the word _will_ too frequently, to the neglect of _shall_.

_Shall_ is from Old English _sceal_ (skayʹ-al) and once meant _owe_, _be obliged_. It still may mean the same thing, when not used as a mere auxiliary. That is, _should_ often means _ought_, which was once the past tense of _owe_. It still can mean “to be obliged.” “You shall,” “he shall,” are expressions that imply obligation, imposed by the speaker. “I shall at last die” still has in it the idea of being compelled. But this phrase illustrates happily one way by which _shall_ with the first person has come to be felt as a mere future. Nearly always to-day _I shall_ names a voluntary act; but the volition is usually not emphasized; the speaker has usually made up his mind before he says _I shall_, and the words simply foretell the future act. “I shall be there” incidentally announces the speaker’s intention, but the chief thing it announces is that the speaker will _be there_. It is probably the future fact that is of interest to his friends. _Ordinarily, therefore_, shall _in the first person means futurity more than it means volition._

_Will_ is from _wilian_ (wilʹ-yan), meaning _to wish_, _to will_. It frequently means that to-day, though in the second and third persons it is also used for the simple future. “I will” always implies volition. I will _implies either deliberate intention, distinct wish, or distinct willingness_. “I will go” means “I am determined to go,” or, “I wish to go,” or, “I am willing to go.” Frequently such a phrase implies that there is opposition or an obstacle. “You will,” “they will,” usually lack the volitive idea; they simply foretell that which _you_, _they_, are about to do. Yet _you will_, _he will_, _they will_ may still mean _you are determined_, etc., if applied to a being that has the power of choice. Here one has but to emphasize the _will_, and the old meaning is brought back. Thus: “He _will_ persist in doing so, though all his friends deplore it.”

Our first rule will accordingly be as follows: _To indicate mere futurity, use shall in the first person, will in the second and third._ Examples: “I shall be glad to come. You and the others will find me on hand at the pier.” So far, so good. But note that this rule also applies when the speaker is made to report his own words in indirect narrative. “Abner _says_ that he _shall_ be glad to come, and that you and the others _will_ find him on hand at the pier.” Just so if the indirect discourse is in the _past_, and it is still the speaker who reports his own words. “Abner _said_ that he _should_ be glad to come, and that you and the others _would_ find him at the pier.” All this seems sensible enough, for the speaker is merely made to foretell his own future act. The rule is too often broken. “Abner said he was afraid he’d miss the boat.” Here the contraction _he’d_ stands (as always) for _he would_, a form that is wrong in this place for _he should_.

The same rule applies when the indirect narrative is merely implied; that is, when instead of such a word as _say_ we have _think_, or _fear_, or _believe_. “Luke thinks he _shall_ miss his boat,” is correct; so is, “Luke feared he _should_ miss the boat.”

Suppose, now, it is no longer what Luke said about his own future act, but what somebody else said about it. “Evarts remarked that Luke was ready and _would_ hurry to the pier; but Evarts feared that Luke _would_ miss the boat.” The _shall_ gives place naturally enough to _will_. _After verbs of saying, thinking, telling, and the like, shall (or should) is the proper auxiliary if the future act is foretold by the actor._

Now we are ready to ask how these words should be used in questions. A very simple rule is enough for most purposes: _In the second and third persons, use in the question the form you expect in the answer._

“Shall you be at the pier by three, Abner?” Abner replies, “I certainly shall.” “Will you kindly bring my lunch with you? the cook has it ready.” “I will, with great pleasure.”

The rule holds when applied to indirect discourse. Thus: “Abner’s aunt asked him whether he _should_ be at the pier by three. Abner replied that he _should_. Then she wanted to know if he _would_ kindly bring her lunch along; Abner promised that he _would_.”

If a question is put in the first person, _shall_ often asks for instructions. “_Shall_ I go?” But if mere information is asked, _shall_ is still the form: “_Shall_ I be required to do all this?” “Yes, I fear you will.” Briefly, then, _for a question in the first person always use_ shall.

=Oral Exercise.=—Where blanks appear in the following sentences insert the right auxiliary. Correct any misuse of auxiliaries.

1. Sometimes an Irishman, sometimes a Frenchman, is credited with this remark: “I will be drowned; nobody shall help me.”