Avoid such constructions as, “The object of your brother’s writing the letter was” &c. [Prefer, “The object your brother had in writing the letter was” &c.; or, “Your brother’s object in writing the letter was” &c.] The gerundial infinite ought to be used—if at all—but very sparingly with a possessive case, especially when the possessive is preceded by of. A similar remark applies still more strongly to the noun form in ing; e.g.: “His killing of the man was” &c.

Be careful about the position of also, even, only—in fact, of all adverbs, prepositions and conjunctions. As a general rule, adverbs precede the words they modify. Thus: “He only writes,” is correct; but, say, “He does nothing but write;” or use some other expression.

Prefer: “In the works of even great men;” to, “In the works even of great men.” So: “Of both ancient and modern times,” is better than, “Both of ancient and of modern times.” [Both would properly come before of in such a construction as: “Both of and from him.”] “Both of ancient and modern times” [without the second of] is entirely incorrect.

“Nobody’s else book,” is said to be preferable to, “Nobody else’s book.” Custom has, however, firmly established the latter form. But it is better to employ some other expression; e.g.: “The book of no one else;” “No other person’s book.”

“Thou canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth.” Or should be used here, as the not modifies (in meaning) all the subsequent part of the sentence. We should never think of saying: “Whence it cometh nor whither it goeth, thou canst not tell.” In, “We will not serve thy gods nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up;” nor is correct; as serve does not govern the rest of the sentence. [Some grammarians, however, contend that or would be equally good: the effect of the not extending over both subsequent verbs. The soundness of this contention is questionable.] The most elegant form to give the sentence is; “We will not serve thy gods, nor will we worship the golden image” &c.

In such an expression as, “I do not want butter or honey;” the strict meaning is, “I do not want merely one of the two.” “I want neither butter nor honey,” means, “I do not want either.”

When two nouns in the possessive case are in apposition, the apostrophe and s may be added to either noun. Thus: “This book is Virgil, the Roman poet’s;” or: “This book is Virgil’s, the Roman poet.” [If, however, the appositive enlargement is complex, or if it consists of several terms, the apostrophe and s should be added to the first noun. E.g.: “This book is Virgil’s, the great and renowned Roman poet.”] Again, if each appositive noun is very emphatic, the apostrophe and s may be added to each. When any doubt arises as to the proper form, employ another expression; e.g.: “This book is one of the works of Virgil, the great and renowned Roman poet.”

Avoid the use of such forms as, “John, William and James’s father.” Prefer, “The father of John, William and James;” or, “The father of John, of William and of James.”

None and any, although originally singular, may now be used as plurals.

Such expressions as, “While playing, the boy was killed,” are quite correct. That is, the auxiliary may be left out, although the phrase is introduced by a subordinate conjunction.

When the auxiliary verb used with a past participle consists of two words (i.e., is compound), the adverb generally comes after the compound auxiliary, not between its two parts. E.g.: “Why he should have suddenly renounced his faith,” &c.; is better than, “Why he should suddenly have renounced” &c. The best form, perhaps, is, “Why he should have renounced his faith suddenly” &c.

It is correct to say, “This seven years has passed;” “This hundred dollars is there:” the seven years being taken as forming one period of time; and the hundred dollars, one sum of money. To avoid the seeming want of agreement between the singular and the plural, use some collective noun after this; e.g.: space, period, in the first case; sum, amount, in the second. [The forms, these seven years, these hundred dollars, would draw attention to the individual years and the individual dollars.]

As a general rule, collective nouns (that is, those nouns as which have both the singular and the plural form, number, crowd) require a singular verb with their singular form, and a plural verb with their plural form. [However, the plural verb may be used with the singular form when the idea of plurality is to be very prominent.] Nouns of multitude, on the other hand, (that is, those which have no plural form, as clergy, nobility) generally require a plural verb. E.g.: “The clergy were assembled; there was a large number present.”

Do not use such words as mathematics, statics, physics, metaphysics (i.e., words originally plural, but now used in the singular), as subjects. So, say: “The study [or science, or practice] of mathematics is useful;” rather than, “Mathematics is [or are] useful.”

Dare, meaning to venture, and used with another verb, requires no to before this latter verb, and has in its past tense durst and in its third person singular present indicative dare (not dares). [The form dared may, however, be used for durst, in the past tense. Dared will then take no to before the infinitive.] Durst is often employed for the present dare, although the latter is preferable; e.g.: “He durst not do so.”

Dare, as a principal verb, meaning to challenge, has dares in the third person singular present indicative, and dared in the past. E.g.: “He dares me to-day, and he dared me yesterday to fight.”

Need has, in the third person singular present indicative, the same peculiarity as dare. Meaning to lack and used as a principal verb, it takes s; meaning to be necessary, and used as an auxiliary (without to), it does not; e.g.: “He needs money; still he need not beg.”

The participle and the infinitive may be used absolutely, as: “Speaking [or, to speak] generally, it is advisable to go.” This absolute form should be but sparingly employed.

If, although, and other conditional conjunctions do not necessarily require the subjunctive mood. They do require it, (1) When the conception is contrary to facts; e.g.: “If the world were round.” (2) When the supposition is a mere mental conception, without reference to how the matter will really be decided, or to what the result will be; e.g.: “If he went away [or, were to go away], I should be happy.” [In such expressions as, “If it rains, I shall not go out;” the indicative is to be preferred to the subjunctive.]

As a principal verb, do may be employed for active transitive verbs only. For these verbs, moreover, do ought not be used—except to avoid excessive repetition—when they are of but one syllable, unless they are followed by other words forming a phrase, for which phrase do may stand. E.g.: “He carves marble better I do;” but, “He writes better than I write.” [In this last sentence it would, of course, be incorrect to omit the verb after I; as the first form of the verb (writes) can not be used with I.] Many good writers employ do for active intransitive verbs such as fly, run, act; but this use should be avoided. As an auxiliary, do may not be used without its principal verb unless the form of the principal verb already employed permits such use; i.e., unless this preceding verb may be repeated without change after the do. E.g.: “He has not looked well lately, nor does he to-day;” should be “He * * * ; nor does he look well to-day.” [A similar remark applies to other auxiliaries when employed without their principal verbs.]

“The verses are as follows;” [or, “as follow.”] Both expressions are sanctioned by good usage.

Some may be correctly used in such expressions as, “some fifty men,” “some ten miles;” i.e., “about fifty men,” &c. This employment of some is becoming obsolete.

You may properly occur in the same sentence with, and as an equivalent of, Your Majesty, Your Excellency, &c. E.g.: “Your Majesty says your Majesty has” &c.; or: “Your Majesty says you have” &c. [The first is, of course, much more formal than the second, and should be preferred when addressing persons of high station.]

“It is I, your brother, who begs you.” “It is I, your brother, who beg you.” In the first, the emphasis is on the word brother; in the second, on the I. [In the latter, it is better to enclose your brother in parentheses, the comma being omitted.]

In “not only—but also,” the also may be omitted. E.g.: “He not only killed the man, but he mutilated the corpse.” [It is generally better to use the complete form, “not only—but also.”]

Do not use like for as. Say: “As did Nero of old, so Thebaw put countless numbers of victims to death;” not, “Like Nero of old, Thebaw” &c. The use of like for as is defended on the ground that the sentence may be expanded into: “Being like Nero, Thebaw” &c. Still, it is the actions of the men that are compared, not the men themselves.

Avoid such awkward collocations as, “This is a far [or much] richer man than his brother.” Say, “This man is far [much] richer [or, richer by far] than” &c. A like remark applies to such, similar, and many other words. Say, “A horse such as that is worth one hundred dollars;” rather than, “Such a horse as that is” &c.

The or in whether—or may be left out; but it is generally better to express it. So: “I do not know whether he will come or not,” is better than, “I do not know whether he will come.”

The adjective is often used for the adverb before a present participle employed as an adjective to qualify a noun. E.g.: “a plain-speaking man,” “a good-looking man,” “a right-living man.” [In such expressions, it is better to unite the adjective and the participle with a hyphen.] With a past participle, the adjective is very rarely used. E.g.: “a plainly furnished house,” “a well dressed man.” Occasionally the adjective occurs with the past participle; e.g.: “a plain-spoken man.”

When the construction is changed from the negative to the affirmative, repeat the subject pronoun; or, if a noun is the subject, insert the personal pronoun before the second verb. Thus: “He does not walk, but he rides.” With whosoever, whoever, &c., as subjects, it is not necessary to use the pronoun before the affirmative verb. E.g.: “That whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life.” When a change of tense, mood or voice occurs, it is generally advisable to insert the pronoun before the second verb, although—as is elsewhere explained—it is necessary to do so only when the verbs are emphatically distinguished or contrasted. [When the change is from the affirmative to the negative, the repetition of the subject or the insertion of the pronoun is not necessary. Indeed, the the repetition of the subject depends largely on the emphasis desired or on the “sound” of the sentence.]

Say, “Solomon, son of David,” rather than, “Solomon, the son of David.” [The rule is that the article ought not to be used before those appositive nouns which are strictly limited by other definite words.] The insertion of the article before David is not absolutely incorrect; but the omission of it produces a good effect and sometimes prevents ambiguity, as in, “John, [the] son of Smith, and Jones, are here.” Where a second addition occurs, the article must be omitted even although it has been used before the first addition. Thus: “The Apostle James, son (or, the son) of Zebedee, and brother (not, the brother) of St John”.

Say, “The eldest son of a duke is called Marquis [not a Marquis].” The article is not to be used before titles as titles, or names as names. [E.g.: “Derive Thames.”] With two or more nouns, the article need not be repeated when there is no ambiguity. When there is, it should be repeated. Thus: “The Queen and King are here,” is correct. [The repetition of the article would, of course, add emphasis to the expression, i.e., it would draw attention to each individual person or thing. E.g.: “A cool temper, a sound judgment, a kindly disposition.”]

“The European and the African race;” or, “The European race and the African race.” Here two races are meant: the one European, and the other African. “The European and African races,” has the same meaning. “The European and the African races,” means there are two or more European and two or more African races. This latter meaning would be more clearly expressed by inserting the word races after the word European.

“The conductor and the driver,” implies two men. “The conductor and driver,” implies one man. Say, therefore: “Solomon, the historian and builder;” not, “Solomon, the historian and the builder.”

“The bay or lame horse,” refers to one horse. “The bay or the lame horse,” refers to two horses. [In the former sentence, it would be better to put a comma after bay.] The rule in all these cases is, that the article must be repeated when there are two or more persons or things. With but one person or thing, the article may be repeated, as in poetry or for the sake of emphasis. E.g.: “A sadder and a wiser man.” It follows from the foregoing rule, that there should be no repetition of the article in such a phrase as, “He is a better poet than musician.” “He is a better poet than a musician,” would mean, “He is a better poet than a musician is.”

“The logical and grammatical analysis of a language is [are]” &c. If but one analysis is meant—i.e., if there is but one subject—the verb should be in the singular, is. If two analyses are meant—i.e., if there are two subjects—the verb may be in the plural, are. In the latter case, however, it is better to supply the article before grammatical. [“The logical and the grammatical analysis are,” &c.] It is still better to supply the first subject [“The logical analysis and” &c.]: the verb being made plural. The supplying of this ellipsis [analysis] avoids the clash between a singular subject alone and a plural verb. Upon the same principle, “The position of the materialist and that of the idealist are reconcilable,” is to be preferred to, “The position of the materialist and of the idealist are reconcilable.” [The determining principle in all these cases is not whether the adjectives have the same meaning, but whether they qualify the same subject.]

Do not say, “No greater or wiser a man ever lived.” Say, “No greater or wiser man” &c.

The gerundial noun with the is generally to be preferred to the simple gerund. E.g.: “The eating of meat is forbidden,” is better than, “Eating meat” &c. [In some instances the latter form would cause confusion of meaning.]

An excellent, but rather loosely worded, rule for the use of shall and will is as follows: “If the speaker is nominative to the verb, and also determines the accomplishment of the idea expressed by the verb; or if the speaker neither is nominative to the verb nor determines the accomplishment of the idea expressed by the verb, use will. In all other cases, use shall.”

Say, “It should seem that he has done so.” [Not, “It would seem” &c.]

In impersonal assertions, such as: “It is hoped [desired, &c.] that all should sit down,” shall and should ought to be used. In direct and personal assertions, such as: “I desired that my conductor would explain,” will and would are to be preferred. [Shall and should are, in such constructions, not incorrect; but will and would are preferable. Perhaps the best rule, in sentences such as the foregoing, is, that when a command is intended, shall and should must be used; when a hope or wish is intended, will and would may be used.]

In a subordinate clause, to express simple futurity, use shall and should when the subject of the subordinate clause is the subject of the principal clause also; will and would when it is not. Thus: “I believe I shall live;” “I believe he will live;” “He believes he shall live.”

Again, in an independent clause use shall and should when the event spoken of is under our control; will and would when it is not. E.g.: “You said it should be done;” “You said it would rain.”

Do not say, “I would be happy to go, if” &c.; or, “I will be happy to go.” Use should and shall. [The idea of willingness, or volition, is sufficiently expressed in the word happy. Hence, would and will are tautological.]

After nouns and adjectives following intransitive and passive verbs the infinitive with to is generally preferable to the gerund in -ing, to express purpose, end, design. E.g.: “He has power to act;” “It is fitted to produce that result.”

“Solomon, son of David, who slew Goliath;” is correct. “Solomon, son of David, who built the Temple;” is incorrect. [The relative should refer to the nearest antecedent. So, change the second phrase into, “The son of David, Solomon, who” &c.; or, “Solomon, who was the son of David, and who” &c.; or employ some other form.]

Say, “He who was, and who is, and who is to come;” or, “He who was, who is and who is to come.” That is, repeat the relative, especially when a conjunction occurs. [If the sentence were to read, “He who was, is and is to come;” He might seem to be the subject of the first and the second is, and not of some verb unexpressed.] The possessives also should be repeated before nouns that are to be distinguished. E.g.: “Their form and their use give us great trouble.”

Do not use that for who or which, when the antecedent is explicit. Say: “My father, who [not, that] is dead.”

Who or which is to be preferred to that when the relative is separated from its verb or its antecedent, and is emphasized by isolation. E.g.: “There are many persons who, had they opportunities, would succeed in life.”

Who or which is to be preferred to that when the relative is governed in the objective by a preposition that has the appearance of an adverb (beyond, over, under, &c.). E.g.: “The limit beyond which no one has gone,” is better than, “The limit that no one has gone beyond.”

Avoid the use of than whom when whom is not really in the objective case. Instead of than whom [which is grammatically incorrect] and than who [which, although grammatically correct, has a very strange sound] employ some other form. E.g.: In place of “Nero, than whom no crueller man has ever lived, was” &c.; say, “Nero—and no crueller man has ever lived—was” &c.; or, “No crueller man than Nero has ever lived. He was” &c. [Of course, when the relative is in the objective case, whom is correct after than; e.g.: “My brother, than whom I love no one more dearly, is ill.”]

Who or which may sometimes [e.g., to avoid undue repetition] be used for that; but that ought never to be used for who or which.

After indefinite pronouns or indefinite pronominal adjectives (others, several, many, some, none, one, &c.), who or which is to be preferred to that.

After personal pronouns prefer who or which. E.g.: “He who is wise,” &c.

After the conjunction that, prefer who or which. E.g.: “He said that the man who saw him” &c.

It is not improper to follow the demonstrative this by the relative that. E.g.: “It was this that caused his death.”

When who or which is used restrictively for that, it is well to place the or that before the antecedent, e.g.: “The States [or, those States] which border on Canada,” &c.

The objective relative may be omitted whenever the antecedent and the subject of the relative sentence come into juxtaposition; e.g.: “Give me the book you have.”

The personal pronoun it and the relative pronoun which may have as antecedents a short, clear clause; but this usage is not desirable. So, although, “He gave me his word of honour: which I had not expected,” is not incorrect; yet it is better to say, “He gave me his word of honour: a thing I had” &c.; or, “He gave me his word of honour. I had never expected this.”

Avoid such a relative construction as: “That was the man who, the witness said, had broken into the store.” Say: “That man, the witness said, had” &c.; or: “That was the man, the witness said, who” &c.; or: “That was the man whom the witness accused of having broken” &c. [The fault of the first construction is that, for an instant, the mind is in doubt whether who or whom ought to be used.]

Distinguish, according to the sense you wish to convey, between the use of the adjective and that of the adverb, after intransitive verbs expressing action [go, come, arrive, depart, &c.] E.g.: “He arrived safe.” “He arrived safely.” The former denotes his condition upon arrival, without reference to his condition upon the way. The latter denotes his condition upon the way, without reference to his condition upon arrival. So say: “He came safely through numberless perils, but dropped dead upon the threshold of his own home.”

Lesser may be used of dimensions, but not of quantity. Thus: “He is lesser than his brother,” is not incorrect; but, “He is smaller than [or, shorter than, or not so large as],” &c., is better. “There is lesser wheat than corn,” is incorrect.