How to Write Clearly, Edwin A. Abbott [most recommended books TXT] 📗

took it ill that his promises were not believed," we may write, "'He took it ill,' he said, 'that &c.'" This gives a little more life, and sometimes more clearness also.

*7. When you use a Participle, as "walking," implying "when," "while," "though," "that," make it clear by the context what is implied.*

"Republics, in the first instance, are never desired for their own sakes. I do not think they will finally be desired at all, unaccompanied by courtly graces and good breeding."

Here there is a little doubt whether the meaning is "since they are, or, if they are, unaccompanied."

*That or when.*—"Men walking (that walk, or when they walk) on ice sometimes fall."

It is better to use "men walking" to mean "men when they walk." If the relative is meant, use "men that walk," instead of the participle.

(1) "While he was } Walking on { (1) the road, } he fell." (2) "Because he was } { (2) the ice, }

When the participle precedes the subject, it generally implies a cause: "Seeing this, he retired." Otherwise it generally has its proper participial meaning, e.g. "He retired, keeping his face towards us." If there is any ambiguity, write "on seeing,"—"at the same time, or while, keeping."

 (1) "Though he was} {(1) he nevertheless stood
                     } { his ground."
 (2) "Since he was } Struck with terror, {(2) he rapidly retreated."
 (3) "If he is } {(3) he will soon retreat."

*8. When using the Relative Pronoun, use "who" and "which" where the meaning is "and he, it, &c.," "for he, it, &c." In other cases use "that," if euphony allows.*

"I heard this from the inspector, who (and he) heard it from the guard that travelled with the train."

"Fetch me (all) the books that lie on the table, and also the pamphlets, which (and these) you will find on the floor."

An adherence to this rule would remove much ambiguity. Thus: "There was a public-house next door, which was a great nuisance," means "and this (i.e. the fact of its being next door) was a great nuisance;" whereas that would have meant "Next door was a public-house that (i.e. the public-house) was a great nuisance." *"Who," "which," &c. introduce a new fact about the antecedent, whereas "that" introduces something without which the antecedent is incomplete or undefined.* Thus, in the first example above, "inspector" is complete in itself, and "who" introduces a new fact about him; "guard" is incomplete, and requires "that travelled with the train" to complete the meaning.

It is not, and cannot be, maintained that this rule, though observed in Elizabethan English, is observed by our best modern authors. (Probably a general impression that "that" cannot be used to refer to persons has assisted "who" in supplanting "that" as a relative.) But the convenience of the rule is so great that beginners in composition may with advantage adhere to the rule. The following are some of the cases where who and which are mostly used, contrary to the rule, instead of that.

*Exceptions:*—

(a) When the antecedent is defined, e.g. by a possessive case, modern English uses who instead of that. It is rare, though it would be useful,[7] to say "His English friends that had not seen him" for "the English friends, or those of his English friends, that had not seen him."

(b) That sounds ill when separated from its verb and from its antecedents, and emphasized by isolation: "There are many persons that, though unscrupulous, are commonly good-tempered, and that, if not strongly incited by self-interest, are ready for the most part to think of the interest of their neighbours." Shakespeare frequently uses who after that when the relative is repeated. See "Shakespearian Grammar," par. 260.

(c) If the antecedent is qualified by that, the relative must not be that. Besides other considerations, the repetition is disagreeable. Addison ridicules such language as "That remark that I made yesterday is not that that I said that I regretted that I had made."

(d) That cannot be preceded by a preposition, and hence throws the preposition to the end. "This is the rule that I adhere to." This is perfectly good English, though sometimes unnecessarily avoided. But, with some prepositions, the construction is harsh and objectionable, e.g. "This is the mark that I jumped beyond," "Such were the prejudices that he rose above." The reason is that some of these disyllabic prepositions are used as adverbs, and, when separated from their nouns, give one the impression that they are used as adverbs.

(e) After pronominal adjectives used for personal pronouns, modern English prefers who. "There are many, others, several, those, who can testify &c."

(f) After that used as a conjunction there is sometimes a dislike to use that as a relative. See (c).

*9. Do not use redundant "and" before "which."[8]*

"I gave him a very interesting book for a present, and which cost me five shillings."

In short sentences the absurdity is evident, but in long sentences it is less evident, and very common.

"A petition was presented for rescinding that portion of the bye-laws which permits application of public money to support sectarian schools over which ratepayers have no control, this being a violation of the principle of civil and religious liberty, and which the memorialists believe would provoke a determined and conscientious resistance."

Here which ought grammatically to refer to "portion" or "schools." But it seems intended to refer to "violation." Omit "and," or repeat "a violation" before "which," or turn the sentence otherwise.

*10. Equivalents for Relative.*

*(a) Participle.*—"Men thirsting (for 'men that thirst') for revenge are not indifferent to plunder." The objection to the participle is that here, as often, it creates a little ambiguity. The above sentence may mean, "men, when they thirst," or "though they thirst," as well as "men that thirst." Often however there is no ambiguity: "I have documents proving this conclusively."

*(b) Infinitive.*—Instead of "He was the first that entered" you can write "to enter;" for "He is not a man who will act dishonestly," "to act." This equivalent cannot often be used.

*(c) Whereby, wherein, &c.,* can sometimes be used for "by which," "in which," so as to avoid a harsh repetition of "which." "The means whereby this may be effected." But this use is somewhat antiquated.

*(d) If.*—"The man that does not care for music is to be pitied" can be written (though not so forcibly), "If a man does not care for music, he is to be pitied." It is in long sentences that this equivalent will be found most useful.

*(e) And this.*—"He did his best, which was all that could be expected," can be written, "and this was all that, &c."

*(f) What.*—"Let me repeat that which[9] you ought to know, that that which is worth doing is worth doing well." "Let me repeat, what you ought to know, that what is worth doing is worth doing well."

*(g) Omission of Relative.*—It is sometimes thought ungrammatical to omit the relative, as in "The man (that) you speak of." On the contrary, that when an object (not when a subject) may be omitted, wherever the antecedent and the subject of the relative sentence are brought into juxtaposition by the omission.

*10 a'. Repeat the Antecedent in some new form, where there is any ambiguity.* This is particularly useful after a negative: "He said that he would not even hear me, which I confess I had expected." Here the meaning may be, "I had expected that he would," or "that he would not, hear me." Write, "a refusal, or, a favour, that I confess I had expected." See (38).

*11. Use particular for general terms.*—This is a most important rule. Instead of "I have neither the necessaries of life nor the means of procuring them," write (if you can with truth), "I have not a crust of bread, nor a penny to buy one."

CAUTION.—There is a danger in this use. The meaning is vividly expressed but sometimes may be exaggerated or imperfect. Crust of bread may be an exaggeration; on the other hand, if the speaker is destitute not only of bread, but also of shelter and clothing, then crust of bread is an imperfect expression of the meaning.

In philosophy and science, where the language ought very often to be inclusive and brief, general and not particular terms must be used.

*11 a. Avoid Verbal Nouns where Verbs can be used instead.* The disadvantage of the use of Verbal Nouns is this, that, unless they are immediately preceded by prepositions, they are sometimes liable to be confounded with participles. The following is an instance of an excessive use of Verbal Nouns:

"The pretended confession of the secretary was only collusion to lay the jealousies of the king's favouring popery, which still hung upon him, notwithstanding his writing on the Revelation, and affecting to enter on all occasions into controversy, asserting in particular that the Pope was Antichrist."

Write "notwithstanding that he wrote and affected &c."

*12. Use a particular Person instead of a class.*

"What is the splendour of the greatest monarch compared with the beauty of a flower?" "What is the splendour of Solomon compared with the beauty of a daisy?"

Under this head may come the forcible use of Noun for Adjective: "This fortress is weakness itself."

An excess of this use is lengthy and pedantically bombastic, e.g., the following paraphrase for "in every British colony:"—"under Indian palm-groves, amid Australian gum-trees, in the shadow of African mimosas, and beneath Canadian pines."

*13. Use Metaphor instead of literal statement.*

"The ship ploughs the sea" is clearer than "the ship cleaves the sea," and shorter than "the ship cleaves the sea as a plough cleaves the land."

Of course there are some subjects for which Metaphor should not be used. See (14 a) and (14 b).

*14. Do not confuse Metaphor.*

"In a moment the thunderbolt was upon them, deluging their country with invaders."

The following is attributed to Sir Boyle Roche: "Mr. Speaker, I smell a rat, I see him brewing in the air; but, mark me, I shall yet nip him in the bud."

Some words, once metaphorical, have ceased to be so regarded. Hence many good writers say "under these circumstances" instead of "in these circumstances."

An excessive regard for disused metaphor savours of pedantry: disregard is inelegant. Write, not, "unparalleled complications," but "unprecedented complications;" and "he threw light on obscurities," instead of "he unravelled obscurities."

*14 a. Do not introduce literal statement immediately after Metaphor.*

"He was the father of Chemistry, and brother to the Earl of Cork."

    "He was a very thunderbolt of war,
    And was lieutenant to the Earl of Mar."

*14 b. Do not use poetic metaphor to illustrate a prosaic subject.* Thus, we may say "a poet soars," or even, though rarely, "a nation soars to greatness," but you could not say "Consols soared to 94-1/2." Even commonplace subjects may be illustrated by metaphor: for it is a metaphor, and quite unobjectionable, to say "Consols mounted, or jumped to 94-1/2." But commonplace subjects must be illustrated by metaphor that is commonplace.

ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE.

*15. Emphatic words must stand in emphatic positions; i.e. for the most part, at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.* This rule occasionally supersedes the common rules about position. Thus, the place for an adverb, as a rule, should be between the subject and verb: "He quickly left the room;" but if quickly is to be emphatic, it must come at the beginning or end, as in "I told him to leave the room slowly, but he left quickly."

Adjectives, in clauses beginning with "if" and "though," often come at the beginning for emphasis: "Insolent though he was, he was silenced at last."

*15 a. Unemphatic words must, as a rule, be kept from the end of the sentence.* It is a common fault to break this rule by placing a short and unemphatic predicate at the end of a long sentence.

"To know some Latin, even if it be nothing but a few Latin roots, is useful." Write, "It