UNIVERSITY OF .WISCONSIN
•
Number 14BUREAU OF EDUCATION
• AL RESEARCH BULLETIN
August, 1933

c GRAMMAR AND USAGE )
in

TEXTBOOKS ON ENGLISH

by

ROBERT

c.

POOLEY

Assistant Profe ssor m
· t h e Teachma
. b of E ng 1·JS I1
University of Wisconsin

MADISON, WISCONSIN

NOTE
This study was undertaken at the suggestion of the late professor Sterling A. Leonard, whose own work The Doctr·ine of
Correctness in English Usage, 1700-1800, though written at an
earlier date, had just left the press in 1929. His tragic death in the
spring of 1931 bereft me of his counsel and guidance in the
actual writing of the work, but for the general plan and many
notes on specific items I am deeply indebted to him. It was
originally our intention to find some third person to do for the
nineteenth century what he had done for the eighteenth, and
what this study attempts for the twentieth. If that study is
eventually forthcoming, we shall have a clear picture of the doctrine of correctness and its influ~nce on English language and
teaching from its inception to the present day.
In the writing of this study I have had the invaluable help
and guidance of Professor W . E. Leonard, who generously assumed the task of adviser, and for whose careful reading and
constructive comments I am exceedingly grateful. In similar
fashion I am indebted to Professor W . F. Twaddell and Miss
Esther Keck, for the reading of the manuscript and for the clarification of several obscure points. And for counsel, encouragement,
and material aid in every step of this task, I acknowledge gratefully my debt to S. M. P ,

R. C. P.

5

CHAPTER VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WRITING
OF TEXTBOOKS IN ENGLISH .... .... ...................................................... 14~

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ......................................:................................. .... ..................................

3

NOTE ............................................................ ,............................................................... 6

I. Recom~endations toward a Sound Theory of Language
and Correctness in Current Textbooks, p. 150; II. Recommendations for the Handling of Specific Items in Current
Textbooks, p. 156; General Summary, p. 159.
APPENDIX I " " " '"'''""''''''"'''.' ''"''''"''''''''"''"' ''' ''''''"'''""'''''''''''"'' OoO.. OOooooo oooOooo oooool62
0

CHAPTER I. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............ .. ............................ ........ 11
Purpose, p . 11; Method, p. 12; Organization, p. 15.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES ........................ .......................................... .. ........ ........................ 165

CHAPTER II. THEORIES OF CORRECTNESS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ........................................................................ .. .......... 17

INDEX OF WORDS AND FORMS .................................................................... 170

The Rise of the Prescriptive Idea, p. 17; The Prescriptive
Idea in the Nineteenth Century, p. 21; Nineteenth-Century Interest in Usage, p. 31; Conclusion, p. 36.
CHAPTER III. CURRENT THEORIES OF CORRECTNESS ............ ........ 38
The Standards of Correctness in Textbooks, p. 38; The
Standards of Correctness in Non-Academic 'Authorities,'
p . 43; Theories of Language and Correctness in Contemporary Writers on English Linguistics, p. 4 7.
CHAPTER IV. PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR ................................................ 52
The Verb, p. 53; The Adverb, p . 64; The Noun, p. 66;
The Pronoun, p. 70.
CHAPTER V. PRESCRIPTIVE SYNTAX ............................ ............................ 78
Subject-Verb Agreement, p. 78; Pronoun Agreement,
p. 85; Adverbial Modifiers, p . 88; The Double Negative,
p. 93 ; The Split Infinitive, p. 95 ; The Dangling Participle
and Gerund, p. 99; The Case of the Noun or Pronoun
with Gerund, p. 104; The Comparison of Adjectives, p.
108; The Indefinite It, p. 111.
CHAPTER VI.

PRESCRIPTIVE USAGE ........................................................ 114

Above as an Adjective, p. 115; Aggravate for Exasperate,
p. 116; And with the Infinitive, p. 118; At or In, p. 119;
Because after Reason, p. 119; Between with more than
Two p. 120; Can and May, p. 122; Dived or Dove, p.
123; Due TQ, p. 124; Each Other; One Another, p. 126;
Either, Neither, p. 127; Further, Farther, p. 128; Get, p.
130; If for Whether, p. 133; Like as a Conjunction, p.
134; Most for Almost, p. 136 ; Myself, p. 13 7 ; Proven, p.
139; Real and Sure as Adverbs, p. 140; Sit and Set; Lie
and Lay, p. 141; Than as a Quasi-Preposition, p. 144;
Whose as a Neuter Possessive Pronoun, p. 147.

6

7

Ye knowe ek, that in forme of speche is chaunge
Withinne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden pris, now wonder nice and straunge
Us thinketh hem ; and yit they spake hem so,
And spedde as we! in love as men now do.
·
Chaucer, Troilus, II, 22.

9

CHAPTER I
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE

To liberal-minded English teachers there have long been apparent numerous and striking discrepancies between the rules and
cautions governing usage to be found in the textbooks on grammar
and composition on the one hand, and the regularly observed customs of language on the other. The interpretation given to these
accumulated contradictions varies in accordance with the language
philosophy of the observer. To the purist these differences are indications of the decay of Modern English, by which far too many
corruptions are permitted a degree of tolerance dangerous to the
integrity of the language. Such a one urges, therefore, a renewed
enforcement of the rules and a multiplication of cautions to
'correct' the errant tongue. To the liberalist, however, these discrepancies are signs of change and growth in language, by which
rules and restrictions, even those at one time accurately descriptive
of English usage are now obsolescent or contrary to current use:
It is evident, therefore, that the purist and liberalist must of necessity be diametrically opposed, and that this opposition must result
in great confusion and uncertainty regarding 'correct' usage in the
present day. To show that such a confusion does exist, and that it
has an unfortunate influence upon the teaching of English in the
schools, is one of the purposes of this study.
It is furthermore a purpose of this study to trace out the
origin and development of the traditional rules and statements concerning usage and to show by means of clear-cut contrasts how
they are at variance with the facts of past and present usage. For
this conception of the problem and the method. of approaching it
the writer is greatly indebted to several previous studies which are
directly contributory to the present undertaking. Less than a decade ago Professor C. C. Fries published two papers on the
future tense 1 which for thorough scholarship and freshness of
1 Fries, "Periphrastic Future
in :Modern English, " P.M .L .A .. December 1925;
"The Expression of the Future,n Language, Vol. III, No. 2, June 1927.

11

and

12

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

viewpoint mark a new era in the objective study of English usage.
A third paper by the same author subjected to severe criticism the
rules of the textbook on granunar, though without much reference
to specific matters. 2 The origin of the prescriptive tradition was
discussed by Dr. Bryan in his "Notes on the Founders of Prescriptive English Grammar," 8 a monograph which led directly to
Professor S. A. Leonard's monumental work, "Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage, 1700-1800," of which a full description and more detailed acknowledgment is given in Chapter II.
As Professor Leonard says in a later paper, 4 "All these studies
appeared to show that the ideal of grammatical correctness, which,
so far as discovered, was first announced in Swift's Proposal for
Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue
( 1712), was pursued through the eighteenth century with attempts
at a rigorous, logical recasting of the language, chiefly on classical
analogies. But with minor exceptions very little attention was
paid to the actual facts of cultivated usage." This present inquiry,
proceeding from the viewpoint just quoted, attempts to follow the
progress of the prescriptive idea through the nineteenth century
and into the twentieth, chiefly to show the still prevalent influence
of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century tenets upon the discussion of current usage in contemporary textbooks. The thesis
of this study, therefore, may be stated thus: Eighteenth-century
theories of language resulted in attitudes and specific rules concerning usage which became fixed and arbitrary in nineteenth. century schoolbooks, and which still persist in the textbooks of
today in total disregard for the objective facts of English usage.
METHOD

The basis of this study consists of a minute analysis of the
contents of sixteen textbooks in grammar and composition chosen
to meet the following requirements :
1. They must lie within the years 1900 to 1930 inclusive. They must particularly be representative of the trends of the last two decades.

2. They must include the three instructional levels: i.e., elementary, secondary, and college. Although the investigation might well have been
limited lo the secondary level, at which instruction in grammar and
usage is stressed, it was thought better to include the entire range.
2 Ibid.
"Rules of the Common School Grammars," P.M.L .A., March 1927.
• Manfey Anniversary Studies in English Literature, University of Chicago Press, 1923,
pp. 383-393.
.
•Leonard-Moffett, "Levels in English Usage," English Journal, May 1927, pp. 345-359.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

13

3. They must be widely used. Obviously all the texts in this field could
not be minutely examined, so that those selected must give evidence
of wide sales and important influence.

The books chosen to meet these criteria are listed below in
chronological order of publication, with authors, abbreviation used
in this study, title, date of publication, publisher, and instructional
level.
1and2. Mary F. Hyde, (Hyde), Two Book Course in English,
D. C. Heath and Company, 1900, elementary level.
3 and 4. Lillia11 G. Kimball, (Kimball), Kimball's Elementary English, American Book Company, 1911, elementary
level.
6. W. D. Lewis and J. F. Hosie, (Lewis and Hosie), Practical English for High Schools, American Book Company,
1916, secondary level.
7. Merle E. Clippinger, (Clippinger), Written and Spoken
English, Silver, Burdett and Company, 1917, secondary
level.
8. E. B. McFadden and A. C. Ferguson, (McFadden-Ferguson), Language Series, Book Three, Rand, McN ally and
Company, 1919, elementary level.
9. John C. French, (French), Writing, Harcourt Brace and
Company, 1924, college level.
10. J. M. Thomas, F. A. Manchester, and F. W. Scott,
(Thomas, Manchester and Scott), Com position for C allege
Students, The Macmillan Company, 1925, college level.
11. C.H. Raymond, (Raymond), Essentials of English Composition, The Century Company, 1925, college level.
12 and 13. F. N. Scott, and G. A. Southworth, (Scott-Southworth), Lessons in EngHsh, Books One and Two, Benjamin
H. Sanborn and Company, 1925, elementary and junior high
school levels.
14. H. C. Pearson and M. F . Kirchwey, (Pearson and Kirchwey), New Essentials of English, American Book Company, 1928, secondary level.
15 and 16. T. J. Kirby, and M. F. Carpenter, (Kirby-Carpenter), Pupil Activity English Series, Books Seven and

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

14

Eight, Harcourt Brace and Company, 1930, junior high
school level.
It will be evident from the foregoing statements that the books
chosen fulfilled the criteria for selection. In chronological order
they appeared in 1900, 1911, 1916, 1917, 1919, 1924, 1925, 1928.
and 1930, affording an excellent sampling of the present century
and especially of the last two decades. They represent the three
instructional levels: there are five in the elementary field, eight
in the secondary field , and three in the college field. There is ample
evidence of their widespread use both from publishers' statements
and from indirect sources.5 It may therefore be asserted with
some justice that although these books represent but a few of the
hundreds of texts in English grammar and composition which
were published between 1900 and 1930, they are among the most
important in point of sales and influence, and offer a fair sampling
of the texts in the three school levels for the purposes of this investigation.
The analysis of each text was made by means of a careful
reading, in the course of which each rule, note, or illustration subject to question in the light of current usage was extracted on a
separate card, indexed, and filed. When this task was completed
over a thousand extracts were available for classi fication and study.
These were then divided into three major groups: .problems primarily concerned with grammar, problems primarily concerned with
syntax, and problems. primarily concerned with usage. The specific
items were further classified and arranged as they appear in ·
Chapters IV, V , and VI of this study. As the basis for the selection of materials for each group is discussed in the introduction to
the appropriate chapter, it is not repeated here.
Each specific item was then studied separately in an attempt to
provide answers to the following questions:
1. When and how did the rule or restriction originate?

2.
3.
4.
S.

Was there opposition to it at the time of its inception?
What is the history of the usage it governs?
What literary support does the usage have?
What support does it receive from earlier and more recent students of
language?
6. What is its current acceptability?
7. How do the textbook rules compare with the ascertained facts regarding the usage?
a Publishers' statements concerning sales have been omitted.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

15

In making the analysis and in interpreting the findings no
attempt was made to compare one text with another. The effort
was rather to present a composite picture of the contents of the
present-day textbooks with regard to English usage, and to show
that as a group they are sadly out of tune with the facts of cur• &/"
rent usage. It may be stated truly that in all important matters
(matters coi1sidered important by the textbook writers) what is
found in one text is sure to be found in some form or other in .all
the others. For this reason, in many instance!? not all the citations
to specific texts have been used, as there was no gain in repeating
the same rule six to ten times in almost the same words.
The reference materials used in studying specific items are
li sted fully in the bibliography and are cited for each reference;
they need not be mentioned here. It may be noted in passing,
·however, that in the majority of cases the factual information
used to prove the textbook statements in error antedates the publi- ,
cation of the textbooks, mute evidence of the failure of schoolbook \
grammarians to keep abreast of the very subject they are assumed \
to be masters of.
ORGANIZATION

The body of this study consists of two parts: an historical review of the prescriptive idea from its inception in the eighteenth
century to its residuum in the twentieth-centry textbooks and
other sources of language information, in contrast with the growth ·
of a linguistic science; and an analysis of the contents of current
textbooks insofar as they are prescriptive, in contrast with the
facts of past and present usage as revealed by dictionaries, his- v'
torical grammars, monographs on specific items, studies in learned
journals, and studies of current usage. Following the general introduction of 01apter I , Chapter II describes the causes and development of the prescriptive idea, carrying it through . the nineteenth century. Chapter III presents the current theories of
language and usage in English as they appear in textb6oks, in
non-academic or popular guides and home-study courses, and 111
the writings of contemporary linguists and other specialists in
the Engli sh language. The analysis of the prescriptive contents
of current textbooks occupies Chapters IV, V, and VI, which deal
with Prescriptive Grammar, Prescriptive Syntax, and Prescriptive
Usage, respectively. Chapter VII contains a summary of the.

16

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

findings of the study, and a series of recommendations regarding
the writing of textbooks on English grammar a~d composition for
school use. A number of minor items of usage about which some
doubt exists, and for which further study is recommended, have
been placed in Appendix I. The Bibliography has been limited to
works actually consulted in the preparation of this study.

CHAPTER II

,I
,·
1

. THEORIES OF CORRECTNESS IN THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY
THE RISE OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE IDEA

Prior to the seventeenth century interest in the English
language was confined largely to enthusiastic verbal experimentation, in coinages, in fantastic transferences of meaning, and in
Latinisms. The fundamental grammar of English was fairly regular, but it appears to have been unconsciously accepted, or at
least taken for granted in an age of interest in words. "Compared
with the language of earlier periods, the language of the Elizabethan period, at least the cultivated formal speech, had gained
in uniformity. But there were still no definite rules for guidance." 1
Of the interest in words and their meanings, however, there is
abundant evidence. "Probably the greatest single achievement of
the English language in the sixteenth century was tJ.Je assimilation
of the flood of words that came in following the Renaissance. This
assimilation was not accomplished without difficulty, without occasional throes of verbal indigestion." 2 One evidence of the protest against the abandoned neologism of the period is found in
the opprobrious epithet "ink-horn terms" which reflects the hostility felt toward new words in some quarters. Shakespeare several
times held these word-pedants up to scorn, nowhere better than
in Holofernes' criticism of Armado's language. 3 In addition to
adding new words, the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries
played with word-compounds and phrasal groups with new meanings, fantastic to the last degree in some instances, but contributing, nevertheless, to the amazing flexibility of modern English.
With regard to the grammar of the period, we may conclude that
it was "that of an intermediary stage in a course of development,
of a language little governed as yet by rules. . ." 4
1 McKnight, George H ., Modern English in the Making , p. 168.
'Ibid., p . 169.
3 Love's Labours Lost . Ad V ., Scene l.
•McKnight, George H. , op. cit ., p. 204.

17

18

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

The verbal exuberance of the Elizabethan era was followed
by a natural reaction toward restraint. From the beginning of
the seventeenth century there grew a decided feeling that English
was uncouth and disorderly, suffering greatly in comparison with
the classical languages of the schools. This feeling was accompanied by an eager zeal to curb and submit to rule the vagaries of
the language then in use. The causes of this movement, and the
forms it took, are admirably presented by McKnight. 5 It is
sufficient for our purpose here to point out that the crystalization
of form and the philosophical concepts of language which mark
the eighteenth century had their beginnings in the classical reaction of the seventeenth century.
From a few scattered protests against the disorderly condition of English, and a handful of schemes for its regimentation ,
the middle of the eighteenth century witnessed an enormous increase in writings on English , and the establishment of theories
of grammar and correctness which remain to a great extent unchanged today. "Whereas fewer than fifty writings on grammar,
rhetoric, criticism, and linguistic theory have been listed for the
first half of the eighteenth century, arnl slili fewer fur all Lhe
period before 1600 l an eHor for 1700? I. the puliiicatiotls in the
period i750-l~OO exceeded 200 tities." 0 Nearly ail of these works
were concerned with C]Uestions of propriety and corrcctncs:; in the
use of English. The task of collecting. analvzing. and interpreting
this body of writing. ""to tind out if possibie why such prescriptions
became prevalent and pop11l<1r, a nd espi>ciaiiy , upon what assmnptious about languag e. aml the LHgiish ianguagc in µart icular. tiicv
:irr lnsr rl ." In s h rrn :ihh- pr rf nr mrrl hY t he htc 1-'rnfr< <n r :-; . _;\.

Leunar<l, from whuse wurk 7 111ud1 u£ the material useJ
section has been gat here<l .
In presenting the conflicting theories of correctness
eighteenth century, I'rofessur Leuuar<l states:

ill

this

111

the

One or two like Dr. Johnson and Horne Tooke · made forays of some
brilliance and did some useful work, but none consolidated any position.
Frequent!~ they quoted with approval the Horatian dictum about usage,
or an equivalent but always they destroyed its entire force in application.
As we shall see in the foll.owing chapter, their fundamental difficulty was
in philosophy. They built in general upon the neo-Platonic notion of a
d ivinely instituted language, perfectly mirroring actuality but debased by
man , and they labored to resto re its pristine perfection.
The prevailing view of language in the eighteenth century was that
English could and must be subjected to a process of classical regularizing.
Where actual usage was obse rved and recorded--even when the theory
was promulgated that usage is supreme-this was, in general, done only to
denounce and reform the actual idiom.B

It is clear from the foregoing summary that in the eighteenth
century, while there were materials available for the formation
of a linguistically sound theory of correctness, the reforming and
pr~scribing forces , backed up by philosophical aspects of language,
umversal and anal ogical grammar, and i/Jse di.x it pronouncements.
so far outnumbered the de fenders of historical g rammar and
current practice that the latter were scarcely heard. Yet in the
]~hi! os~phy ,.o f.. ~ock:c, the. gra11u11ar uf Dr. Prie~ llc ..v, c.u1d L11e dicl1u 11a r1 c ~ u1 .J ui lll.'iun anU \Y e L~Lcr ina_y
::, tatc
T""I.

UH U1c t Cll.Cl :J
• •

. 1

•

tn?~

1}e:-;pn e

.~

.

UiJu ll
•

\vl11ci1
•

.

be iound in e ildJryon ic
l111gu1 .stic sci e nce re s l:-:1.
s t att111ents u l l'l' runne r s \\" Cf C'

111uJ L:r11

tacr _. r11e prcc;cnpti \"fl

received, approved, and formulated i11tu rules; the rul es were
i11io i..- x1i uu1ks , and were copied fr om hon k t n hnok
tlirvu~itvUL Ut e ui11elee 11ll1 ee11u11·y and to a t'011 $id Prah lc e xtent
~ ati. ., rnl

i1; the ll l Ct.ltl\ \ ·l 1iic t he E1 Li.:~l i . . l1 Lt11l'. 11 ~1 ~ i· i1'.'(' I!.
ly·c.; nr~~nf r .:::-:n1Yt h. n ~1!~: c:!i;:- ~1 th · i11f1 1_1t~ ll 1_· 1_·1_ ) ) 1·. !L ·.
1 ulc::; l.Jlcscriix:J ivr it , u11Lii luda_v 111 a 11 y ui the rui es bear no. more
i11

LI 1c l\\"l:I:licll i.

cnntlnqprj

tl1a 1i

But the eighteenth-century grammarians and rhetorician s were mainly
clergymen, retired gentlemen, and amateur philosophers like the elder
Shandy, with an immense distaste for Locke's dangerous and subversive
doctrines. Though more or less conversant with classical texts, they had
littl e or no conception of the history antl relations of the classical or
other languages, and of course no equipment for carrying on lingui st ic research or even for ·mak ing valid observations of contemporary usage .

19

a

iaint

i"l'>CilllJl:uii..:c

t(> tlic

l d11 .1
.....,1u;L."- . c

cu:-;tu11i:i tlit· 1

;11"('

.-.:. 11p -

posed to describe. But before going further with this thought ,
which is the ccn t1·;il theme uf thi s i11 vcst igaliu11 , it is i111peratin: to
examine briefly the eighteenth-century theories of language upon
which the prescriptive statements were based.
Referring once more to the work of Professo r L conarcJ!1 we
find the following theori es of language current in th e eighteenth
century :
t. Lang uage :is an entity rrquiring con forn1 ity t o it:; nature , ::: incc it is a

mirror oi actua lity. "Those parts of speec h unite of th emselves in gram'Ibid. , chapt<r XL
• Leonarrl, S. A., Doctri ne of Corre ct11css i11 English Usage, 1700- 1800 , p. ll.
T

Ibid.

fb id ., pp. 13 , 1-1.
~ Ibid .. pp. 23 1, 232.

1'
1

Th r quotati ons are taken from the se \·rra l cha p ter hea din gs .

20

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
mar, whose original archetypes unite of themselves in nature" (Harris,
Herme.s, 1751). ·
2. The authority of the grammarian 's or of the critic's ipse dixit. "A multitude of errors committed by writers, evidently from their misapprehending the import of words, are cited as authorities by Johnson, instead of being noticed with censure . . . thousands of instances . . .
of misapplication of terms ... are clearly ascribed to the negligence
and mistakes of that lexicographer." (Noah Webster, Letter to Doctor
Ramsey, 1809) .
3. The abitrament of universal grammar and universal reason, which retained in effect that of the Latin analogy. "UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR;
that Grammar, which without regarding the several idioms of particular
Languages, only respects those principles, that are essential to them
all." (Harris, Hermes) .
4. The conflicting ideals of (a) analogy of forms in the language itself
and (b) the need of differences in form f(!r all possible differences in
relations of ideas. "In doubtful cases regard · ought to be had in our
decisions to the analogy of the . language." (Campbell, Canon the
Second, PhiJosophy of Rhetoric, 1776).
5. The authority of absolute logic-precision in matters of syntax and
of word-choice. "It is inelegant to vary the construction of Members of .the same Period." (Buchanan, Regular English Syntax) .
6. The etymology of words and the history of the language as determiners of usage. " . . . though he is for justifying this, and the
like phrases, by having recourse to the Saxon ; which I should apprehend there is not occasion to do any more than to the Hebrew . . .
or to the Latin:" (Anselm Bayly, Plain and Complete Grammar, 1772 ) .
7. The authority of good custom defined as national (pure, not foreign
or provincial), reputable (proper as opposed to vulgar), present, and
further circumscribed by numerous canons of exception, such as beauty
and the various principles described in Numbers 3-6 above. "No
custom can prevail against right reason and the law of nature . ..
The will of the people is the foundation of custom. But if it be not
grounded upon reason but error, it is not the will of the people."
(Taylor, Elements of Civil Law, quoted by Horne Tooke).

The eighteenth century, as may be seen from the foregoing analysis of its philosophy of language, regarded English as
a useful but inferior sort of instrument, sadly degenerated from
its perfect 'archetype' and filled with impurities and improprieties
offensive to one trained in the beauty of classical style. It therefore set about, quite naturally, to delete from the language those
imperfections which marred its pristine glory, leaning heavily
upon analogy with Latin and Greek for models and authority. But
at this point a serious difficulty was encountered. There were some

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

21

English constructions which were then undoubtedly correct, and
had been good usage for past centuries, for which ·no analogy
whatever could be found in the classics. Could it be possible that
custom might establish unique forms in English? Priestley thought
so, and firmly asserted, "It must be allowed that the custom of
speaking is the original, and only just standard of any language.
We see, .in all grammars, that this is sufficient to establish a rule,
even contrary to the strongest analogies of the language with
itself." 10 To this position he holds consistently in his grammar.
His contemporaries, however, though forced to concede grudgingly
the authority of custom, ignored it almost completely in their
writings : "many of the writers on language in the eighteenth
century professed to foll ow custom or usage or acknowledged its
determining influence in one or more particulars. But none save
Priectley made the appeal to usage with anything approaching consistency. As Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric amazingly illustrates, the appeal to usage in the eighteenth century resulted
in a complete repudiation of usage." 11 To Campbell's name must
be added that of Bishop Lowth, for he among all the eighteenthcentury grammarians most profoundly affected the practice of the
nineteenth century. Speaking of. the defective verbs and the irregular comparison of adjectives like good and bad, Lowth says,
"They are in general words of most frequent and vulgar use, in
which the Caprice of Custom is apt to get the better of analogy." 1 2
It is evident, in summarizing the activities of the eighteenthcentury critics of English,· that despite Dr. Priestley's insistence
upon custom as the chief arbiter in questions of usage, he was
unheeded, and the grammarians of that century gave themselves
. over to the task of purifying and regularizing the language. Inevitably it followed that the dicta of the pedants should become the
rules of the school grammars; it now remains to trace the influence
of these rules on the teaching of grammar in the nineteenth
century.
THE PRESCRIPTIVE IDEA IN THE NI N ETEENTH CENTURY

Before pursuing the thread of the prescriptive idea through
the nineteenth century, two very definite limitations of this present inquiry must be acknowledged. In the first place, inasmuch as
1•
11
11

Priestly. J., Rudiments of English Grammar, pp. ix-x.
Leonard, S. A., op. cit., p. 165.
Quoted from Leonard, S. A., op. cit., p . 141.

22

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

the interest of our inquiry is centered upon contemporary textbooks in the United States, the study of the nineteenth-century
school grammars has likewise been limited to the United States,
omitting entirely similar developments in England and other parts
of the British Empire. Moreover, the outline of the nineteenth..:entury ·attitudes toward usage here presented is in itself extremely sketchy, developed only to the point of casting some
light on the problem in the twentieth century. The subject is
worthy of careful and painstaking investigation to culminate in
a volume as comprehensive and definitive as that of Professor
Leonard's for the eighteenth-century. It is sincerely to be hoped
chat such a work may soon appear.
With regard to the teaching of grammar in the nineteenth.:entury, however, we are more fortunate. The introduction and
development of instruction in English grammar in the United
States has been fully and accurately presented by Professor R. L.
Lyman in his monograph, English Grammar in Anierican Schools
before 1850. In this work Professor Lyman traces the influences
and causes which brought about the shift from Latin to English
grammar in the older schools, and the founding of new schools
for instruction in the vernacular. He says in summary, "'vVe are
safe in saying not only that the American colonists inherited from
England the grammar school and college, but that they endeavored
to go beyond the mother country in teaching the vernacular.
Vernacular instruction is indissolubly associated with the Reformation out of whi~h the first New England colonies sprang.'' 18
Nevertheless, with the shift to English grammar from the Latin
there was little change in the theory or practice of teaching. The
memorization and formal application of rules still obtained; the
change was one of subject matter only. The establishment of this
fact is significantly pertinent to the present inquiry, inasmuch as
the formal use of rules leads to the multiplication, perpetuation,
and glorification of rules themselves. The method, in short, was
lethal to any sort of scientific observation of the language itself.
Professor Lyman adds:
In the Latin school the backbone of the course had been grammar i
the term grammar, the methods of teaching grammar were ingrained.
Latin grammar had stood for the next step above reading and writing the
vernacular. Wben, therefore, the advocates of a practical English training found English grammar in Dilworth and other texts, what was more
"Op. cit ., p. 17 .

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

23

natural than that they would seize upon it as a suitable substitute for
the next step above reading and writing and spelling? English they found
reduced to the same accidence as Latin; textbooks informed them on title
pages that grammar was the art of speaking and writing the English
language correctly, and this was their laudable desire for their children;
here is a suitable ·setting in the vernacular program for grammar as the
basic study. This conviction made its way into legal sanction for English
and English grammar in the last decade of the eighteenth century. 14

At first the colonies (soon to become the new states) turned
to England for textbooks in the new subject. There is evidence of
some twelve English grammars having been imported for use,
only three of which attained great popularity: Dilworth's Brief
but Comprehensive English Grammar (referred to above) ;
Lowth's Short Introduction to English Grammar; and an anonymous British Grammar. Concerning the influence of Lowth's book,
Lyman says, "The text, considered strictly as a grammar, of
most extensive use and influence in the colonies was Lowth's ..
Harvard used Lowth as early as 1774 ai1d as late as 1841. .
Lowth's greatest significance is that most of his rules have been
copied verbatim by Lindley Murray and again from him by many
compilers of lesser note." 15
Even the slight evidence here presented is sufficient to show
the direct heritage of eighteenth-century purism and pedantry
in nineteenth-century American schools. The links in the chain
are clear. Latin grammar, as taught in the colonial schools, was
the study of rules; the substitution of English grammar for Latin
meant the necessity for rules of English grammar. The eighteenthcentury reformers supplied these, chief among whom was Lowth,
whose own book enjoyed great popularity in the United States
and was used at Harvard as late as 1841. Next came Lindley
Murray, the phenomenal sale of whose book is attested below, who
borrowed his rules from Lowth. He was copied in turn by countless compilers whose books were in use to the close of the nineteenth century. Surely the hand of the eighteenth-century grammarian lay heavily upon the grammar of the nineteenth!
There were three influences at the turn of the century which
g reatly enhanced the value and appreciation of fixed rules in
English. One was the great amount of public speaking engaged
111 at the time, a natural concomitant of the furious political
"Ibid pp. 76, 77.
"'/bii: pp. 34, 35.

J

[

25

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

activity. Public speech called for polished style; polished style
rested on rules ; the grammars furnished the rules. The second
influence was the absorption of large numbers of non-Englishspeaking people, who in learning English tended to blend its
grammar with their. own as well as to retain words and idioms
merely transliterated into English. To curb this corruptive influence the schools felt the need of a fixed standard in English,
eagerly turning to the rules of the grammar-books as a providential
authority. The third influence was a .feeling of social, literary, and
educational insecurity. Among a pioneer people, occupied with the
task of producing the material necessities of life in a virgin territory, it is natural to iii.dine toward established authority in cultural matters. This cultural dependence of the American colonies
is clearly seen in the arts, in literature, and in their attitude toward
standards in language usage.
With Webster's Plain and Comprehensive Grammar of 1784 a
shower of textbooks in grammar began to fall on · the American
. schools. Seventeen other books appeared before 1795. 16 In that
year Lindley Murray's English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners made its appearance. This book, together
with his Abridgment (1797), An English Grammar, in Two
Volumes ( 1814) and English E.tercises ( 1802) reached a total
of over 120 editions of 10,000 copies each, so that more than
1,000,000 copies of his books were sold in America before 1850.
Adding this total to those of his imitators the grand total is
something over 2,000,000 copies. Since Murray copied extensively
from Lowth, here is abundant evidence of the establishment of
eighteenth-century prescriptive grammar in the school-books of
the United States from 1795 to 1850 and beyond.
In the first decades of the new century four more texts appeared which gained enormous popularity, gradually superseding
Webster and Murray. These were Samuel Kirkham's English
Grammar in Familiar Lectures ( 1825 ) , Goold Brown's Grammatical Institutes (1825), Peter Bullion's Principles of English
Grammar ( 1834), and Roswell Smith's two grammars of 1.8 29
and 1831. "Smith's grammars were used more than all others
combined in Massachusetts during these decades. Bullion, Brown,
Smith, and Kirkham divided the grammatical field of N ew York
about evenly among them." 17 Toward the close of the first half

of the century three more texts appeared which had considerable
influence. William H. Wells published his School Grammar in
1846, Samuel S. Greene's The Analysis of Sentences, came the
next year, and in 1851 Goold Brown brought out his colossal
Grammar of Granimars. This latter work was the epitome of the
eighteenth-century tradition. In its more than a thousand pages of
fine print the student found rules to memorize, exercises to parse,
and quotations from standard authors to 'correct.' Brown says
himself that this is the traditional method, "I mean, especially the
ancient positive method, which aims directly at the inculcation of
principles.'' 18 The Grammar of Grammars marked the pinnacle~nd
decline of the traditional conception of language and grammar.
£;iaenc1es already visible in earlier grammars became ~-;; and
more pronounced, so that by the third quarter of the century a
new theory oi grammar had largely superseded the old, bringing
with it a new attitude toward language itself. Yet with the change
in theory much of the specific matter remained unchanged, appearing in text after text even to the present day, carried along by
the weight of tradition.
Let us now examine what these earlier texts had to say about
usage. The student is at once struck by the contradictions in
these texts betwe·e n the theory of usage, which is usually sound,
and the actual practice, which is quite the reverse. Thus we find
Webster saying, "The better way is to explain every language just
as it is, and frame a grammar of each ianguage upon its own
idioms."19 This is excellent, but see what this "grammar" must
be: "Grammar as a science, treats of the natural connection between ideas, and words which are signs of ideas, and developes
the principles which are common to all languages. These principles
are not arbitrary (debatable?), nor subj ect to change, but fixed
and permanent, being founded on facts and distinctions established
by nature.''20 This is a far cry from explaining " every language
as it is, . . . upon its own idioms" ; it is a clear reflection of the
eighteenth-century theories of Universal Grammar and Language
the Mirror of Nature. In still further contradiction of usage as
the standard, he says, "There are many grammatical errors in the
writers of the 16th and 17th centuries, which Lowth, Priestley,
Blair and Campbell have enumerated in their respective works, and

21

Ibid., p . 78 .
tT Lyman , R . L., op. cit ., p . 133, footnote.

19

Brown , Goold, Grammar of Grammars, p. 86.
"Webster, Noah, Philosophical and Practical Grammar, edition of 1807, p. 10.
'°Ibid., p. 12.
19

v

26

J

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

many of them are copied into Murray's gram.mar." 21 Yet Webster's
work as a whole shows a far more liberal attitude toward usage
than those of his contemporaries or successors.
The contradiction between theory and practice is even stronger
in Murray. For the authority of usage he says, "The practice of
the best and most correct writers, or a great majority of them,
corroborated by general usage, forms, during its continuance, the
standard of language." 22 In this statement he is echoing Campbell,
whose own amazing departure from theory in practice has been
noted earlier. Murray adds further, "It is not the business of
grammar . . ·. to give law to the fashions which regulate our
speech. On the contrary, from its conformity to these, and from
that alone, it derives all its authority and value. . . . The use
here spoken of . . . is properly reputable custom, . . . whatever
modes of speech are authorized as good by the writings of a great
number, if not the majority, of celebrated l\,Uthors." 28 Yet Murray
'corrects' the grammar of the King James Bible and copies Lowth's
ilustrations
bad-grammar in the 16th and 17th century writers.
Samue Kirkl;a~.;'ts more consistent in his theory and practice, in spi e of d ct that he grud ingly admits the authority of
custom. But one feels clear y that he is ts resse
y
-----rectiOilSOf English, imperfections which he will do his utmost to
counteract, even while unwillingly giving way occasionally to
custom . . He says, "In the grammar of a perfect language, no
rules should be admitted, but such as are founded on fixed principles, arising out of the genius of that language and the nature of
things; but our language being im-perfect, it becomes necessary,
in a practical treatise, like this, to adopt some rules to direct us
in the use of speech as regulated by custom. If we had a permanent and surer standard than capricious custom to regulate us in
the transmission of thought, great inconvenience would be avoided.
They, however, who introduce usages which depart from the
analogy and philosophy of a language, are conspicuous among
the number of those who form that language. . . . We are, therefore, . . . compelled . . . to take the language as it is, and not
as it shou.ld be, and bow to custom." 24 Here we have the prescriptive idea at its best. Kirkham sighs over the 'imperfection' of
21 Ibid., p. 246.
22 Murray, Lindley, English Grammar Adapted to th.e Different Classes of L earners,
edition of 1802 , p. 145 .
"Ibid. , Two Volume edition of 1817, p . 358 .
H Kirkham
Samuel English Grammar in Familiar Lcct 11res, Eleventh Edition 1830,
p . 18.
'
•

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

27

English, he regrets the force of 'capricious custom' which causes
'great inconvenience,' and he deplores the fact that influential writers sometimes depart from the analogy and philosophy of the
language. Hence the language is not what it 'should be,' and he
is 'compelled . . . to bow to custom.' Even his bow is but a
slight nod to certain unanalogical idioms which are indisputably
established; he pays no attention at all to present custom, particularly that of the United States. He knows what 'should be' and
prescribes for it.
Peter Bullion, though apparently repudiating the prescriptive
idea, actually advances little beyond Kirkham's position except in
the softeni.ng of the terms. He says: "No grammarian can of hi s
own authority alter the · phraseology of any expression, or assign
to a word a signification different from that which has been allotted to it by established usage. He must take the language as it is,
not as he would wish it to be. He may, indeed, recommend this or
that mode of expression, as more agreeable to analogy, but it must
remain with the public whether or not his advice be adopted.
"Prior to the publication of Lowth's excellent little grammar,
the grammatical study . of our own language, formed no part of
the ordinary method of instruction, and consequently the writings
of the best authors were frequently inaccurate. Subsequent to that
period, however, attention has been paid to thi s important subject,
and the change that has taken place both in our written and oral
language, has evidenced the decided advantages resulting from
such a plan.'' 25
Since Bullion grants the grammarian the power of recommending modes of expression "more agreeable to analogy," he reveals, despite his defence of usage, a desire to "improve" the imperfections of English, an attitude further appar_ent in his observation that "the writings of the best authors were frequentl y inaccurate," a sad condition now much improved by the "change"
brought about by the efforts of the grammarians. He makes a distinct contribution, however, in acknowledging the power of the
"public,'' rather than a select group of conservative writers, in
establishing language custom.
Roswell Smith calls his book an English Granmtar on the
Proditctive Systen-i, in the preface to which he points out his
adaptation of the new educational movements in Europe to the
"'Bullion, Peter, Principles of Engisli Grammar, Edition of 1844. pp. 189, 190.

28

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

teachi~g of granunar. But his title is sadly misleading, for the
book itself is no more than a copy of Murray, both in its statements on usage and its examples of ' false syntax.' In Wells and
Greene, on the other hand, there is appare~tly a new spirit which
clearly forecasts the change in language attitude appearing in the
latter part of the nineteenth century. In Wells, as in his predecessors, what he says is better than what he does, yet ·his evident effort to study usage by collecting great numbers of instances is
highly conunendable. He says, "It is hoped that instructors will
fin~ . th~ present work a~~pted to teach 'the art of speaking and
wntmg . . . . The defimt10ns and rules of different grammarians
were carefully compared with each other, and tested by constant
~efere~ce . to the usage of standard authors. . .. In pursuing this
mvestigabon the author collected between three and four hundred
different treatises on English granunar, and noted above eighteen
thousand illustrative examples in the productions of the best
English writers." 26 In spite of this scientific investigation and
careful examination of usage, which in some instances resulted
in excellent discussions of divided usage, Wells did not hesitate to
correct the syntax of Milton, Gay, Parnell, Gibbon, Scott, Johnson, Addison, and others.
. In Greene's Grammar the advance is much more striking, both
m theory and in practice. He omits the usual discussion of grammar as Universal and Particular, he fails to copy Campbell's doctrines of usage, and (most significant) he offers no quot ·fons
from authors for correction. On the other hand he stresse doing
as necessary to learning, and in this anticipates the 'fun tional'
grammars of the early twentieth century. He says, " .. . · is
believed that children perceive grammatical . . . relations more
easily from what they have to perform, than from what they have
to commit to memory." 27 Quite consistently he stresses the sentence as the foundation of English grammar, building up from the
sentence and its parts a comprehensive . view of grammar.
Although Goold Brown's first grammar was published in 1823,
discussion of it has been deferred in order to include at the same
time his monumental Grmmmar of Grammars of 1851. In the
twenty-eight years interval there is no change in his point of view;
the latter work is merely an enormous elaboration of the principles
expressed in the former. No injustice is done, therefore, in plac-

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

ing side by side excerpts from the two works to exhibit Goold
Brown's position.
The author of the Institutes rev~als himself as a static grammarian ; he sees language as a fixed entity, perfect in theory, but
still hampered by impurities which it is the duty of the grammarian to eradicate. He says, "Hence the need that an able and discreet grammarian should now and tl~en appear, who with skillful
hand can effect those corrections which a· change of fashion or
the ignorance of authors may have made necessary" ;28 that he
is such a grammarian he has no doubt. Usage he finds dangerous ;
it is by no means a safe guide to correctness. "I concur not, therefore, with Dr. Campbell, who, to make out a strong case, extravagantly says, 'It is never from an attention to etymology,
which would frequently mislead us, but from custom, the only
infallible guide in. this matter, that the meanings of words in
present use must be learnt.' . . . It is folly to state for truth
what is so obviously wrong. Etymology and custom are seldom
at odds; and where they are so, the latter can hardly be deemed
infallible." 29
Usage is not a safe guide, but the rules of a master granunarian may be relied upon, memorized, and applied ever afterwards.
His plan of teaching is in perfect accord with this theory. "The
only successful method of teaching grammar is to cause the principal definitions and rules to be committed thoroughly to memory,
that they may ever afterwards be readily applied."BO In this way
English will becomes fixed, regular, and pure. The idea of future
change and growth does not occur to Brown. The grammarian,
he says, "presumes to be a judge of authorship, and a teacher of
teachers." 8 1 Such a grammarian will find that though authors
claim the authority of good use, "No few have departed from it,
even while they were pretending to record its dictates . . . Nay,
while new blunders have been committed in every new book, old
ones have been allowed to stand as by prescriptive right; and positions that were never true, and sentences that were never good
English, have been published and republished under different
names, until in our language, granunar has become the most un28
29

80

in.

J/\!/

,. Wells, W. H., Grammar, Edition of 1846, preface.

11

l

Greene, Samuel S., First Lessons in Grammar, 1848, preface.

29

Brown , Goold , Grammar of Grammars, p. 10.
Loe. cit .
Brown, Goold , Institut es, pre face.
Brown, Goold, Grammar of Gramm ars, p. 10.

31

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

grammatical of all studies." 32 From this dreadful condition
Brown arrives as the Messiah to lead the way to a correct and
perfect grammar. Nor does ~le spare his predecessors and contemporaries. Webster has dared to set up custom over authority:
"What marvel, then, that all his multifarious grammars of the
English language are despised ?" 88 Murray was a " professed compiler; who had so mean an opinion of what his theme required,
as to deny it even the common courtesies of compilation !"3 4 His
successors wrote "works of little or no merit . . . . It is comical
to see what they say in their prefaces." Upon Kirkham he bestows a galling' pity: "It is cruel in any man to look narrowly into
the faults of an author who peddles a school-book for bread .. ..
Far be it from me to notice any such character, except with kindness and charity." 35 The title to Greene's book is a "libel and a
lie"; Sm.ith's grammar " is a grammatical chaos." Having thus
cleared the way, Brown modestly concludes, "A grammar should
speak for itself. . . . The merit of casting up a highway in a
rugged land, is proportionate not merely to the utility of the
achievement but to the magnitude of the obstacles to be overcome
. . . the author . . . has voluntarily pursued the study, with an
assiduity which no man will ever imitate for the sake of pecuniary
recompense."' 3 0
The influence of Brown, great as it was, was not destined to
flourish unchallenged. His position in 1851 was indeed reactionary;
already Smith, with his insistence on the sentence as the foundation of granmmr and his scheme for the inductive teaching of
grammar, was pointing the way that grammar instruction was to
go. Brown knew of these changes and derided them . He was in
the wrong, however; the same spirit in education which was substituting the field tr_ip for the botany book, the laboratory for the
chemistry book, and the observator·y for the formal astronomy
book was· to turn the attention of students to the language itself
and away from the formal rules of grammar. The change itself
was exceedingly slow, and is by no means completed yet , for
notwithstanding the improvements in the teaching of grammar,
with resultant changes in the theories of language and usage, the

force of tradition was strong, causing rule after rule to be copied
from book to book, frequently in amusing contradiction with the
expressed theory of language and usage in the author's preface.
Thus we find in the grammars of the latter part of the nineteenth
century, with a few notable exceptions, a continuous struggle
between scientific theories of usage based on observed custom and
the traditional rules of English. This struggle still persists, and
since the nature of the contradictions can be profitably examined_
in the textbooks of the twentieth-century, discussion of it is reserved for the next chapter. Moreover, the vast expansion of the
United States after the Civil War, and the tremendous increase
in common schools, with a resultant flood of textbooks, tended to
restrict the influence of any one book both in area and duration,
so much so as to render the examination of a few random samples
unprofitable. Far more illuminating are the books and articles on
English usage which began to appear in the latter half of the
century.

3()

"Ibid,, p , 11.
" Ibid,, p. 14.

"Loe. cit,, p . 14.
>.' Ibid., p. 28.
"'Ibid,, p , 99.

NINETEENTH-CENTURY INTEREST IN USAGE

It has been seen in the discussion up to this point that although
the doctrine of usage as the principal or sole arbiter of correctness
in language was voiced in the eighteenth century and repeated in
theory in the nineteenth, no writer of importance other than
Priestley really trusted usage enough to employ it in practice. In
fact, the disparity between theory and practice in the matter is
the chief fact brought to light in the foregoing investigation.
Toward the middle of the nineteenth century, however, the authority of usage was again rtcognized and defended, sporadically · at
first by a voice here and there, but growing eventually into a
definite language attitude vigorously supported, and as vigorously
opposed. So violent, indeed, was the discussion, that scholars, presumably gentlemen of good taste, indulged in verbal battles of a
bitter and personal nature, heaping abuse upon each other with
a rancor not found in modern s~holarly controversy. These personal aspects of the struggle, interesting as they are, cannot be
treated here; our concern must be with the essential ideas of the
respective combatants.
As early as. 1847 "R. G. Latham, one of the most famous
linguistic scholars in England, said that of language 'whatever

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

is, is right.' " 8 7 This point of view, contemporary with the extreine authoritarianism of Brown, was repugnant to the leading
grammarians of the time, and was bitterly opposed. Marsh, a
distinguished American scholar, while in the main holding to an
organic conception of language, nevertheless attacked Latham for
his theory, pointing out that change in language is a sign of corruption ; it is the duty of the grammarian "to retard the decay of our
tongue." In fact, he urges the solemn duty of the grammarian to
uphold the purity of our speech, "Language being a living organic thing, is, by the very condition of its vital existence, by the
law of life itself, necessarily always in a progressive or at least
fluctuating state. To fix it, therefore . , . is impossible. . . .
But . . . something can and should be done to check its propensity
to wandering growth.''88 This extract is of peculiar interest because it illustrates the dilemma of the earnest scholar trying to
support at once an impersonal, objective attitude toward language
and a personal, subjective attitude of 'improving' or at least checking the 'corruption' of English. This dilemma is felt all through
the latter part of the century, and still exists today for those who
feel a moral obligation toward a particular kind of language. There
are numerous examples of it from current textbooks in the following chapters.
A year later Dean Alford, an English cleric, brought out his
A Plea for the Queen's English which despite its title is on the
whole a very liberal work in which the author does not hesitate to
make custom his canon of correctness. He says, "The English
language has become more idiomatic than most others . . . and the
tendency is still going on among us to set aside accurate grammatical construction, and to speak rather according to idiom than
according to rule.''89 To this he adds the excellent epigram,
"Grammarians and rhetoricians may set bounds to language; but
usage will break over in spite of them.'' 40 Dean Alford's influence
was very great, owing both to his prominent position, and the
publicity which his detractors ga:ve him. Chief among these was
an American appropriately named George Washington Moon,
who in a work called The Dean's English made a direct and personal attack on the usage of the Dean himself: Moon makes no

specific statements of theory, but the whole tenor of his work is
an appeal to authoritative 'correctness' against the freedom resting
on custom exercised by the Dean. Moon's attitude and the significance of his work can be had at a glance from a line in his preface. He says, "The -Dean himself . . . was but a castaway in
matters of grammar."
Much more serious and influential was the reactionary volume ·
of R. G. White appearing in 1870. In this we find all the old theories revived: logic, reason, analogy, natural and universal grammar, and strong opposition to custom. White says,

32

a

"Hall, J, Lesslie, English Usage , p. 15.
,. Marsh, George, L"''"es on the English Language, 1859, p. 615.
"Alford, The Queen's English, j>. 68.
'"Ibid., p. 282.

33

Speech, the product of reason, tends more and more to conform itself
to reason; and when grammar, which is the formulation of usage, is
opposed to reason, there arises, sooner or later, a conflict between logic,
or the Jaw of reason, and grammar, the law of precedent, in which the
former is always victorious .. . Usage . . . is not ... the absolute law
of language . . .. There is a· misuse of words which can be justified by
no authority, however great, by no usage, however generaJ.U

In accord with this theory there follo~s a most amazing list of
examples and prescriptions. Not only are ancient and accepted
idioms of English condemned as unanalogical and contrary to reasop, but ancient and obsolete uses are lauded as greatly preferable
to the current forms. Almost every example is bad, betraying
either the most profound linguistic ignorance, 'o r an astounding
assumption of ipse dixit authority. This work is prescriptive
usage at its highest point; it has served ever since as the awful
·
example of what a little knowledge can do.
White, as may be conjectured, was not without opponents.
Chief among these was Fitzedward Hall, who, in two works appearing in 1872 and 1873 respectively, attacked White's theories
and examples by piling up example after example of literary usage,
and revealing with considerable glee the all-too-apparent errors in
scholarship of which White had been guilty. Hall answers White's
definitions of correctness and authority thus :
Now, by usage of speech we mean the forms of it which are customarily
employed; and by grammar and lexicography, orderly records thereof.
Although, then, speech tended "more and mpre to conform itself to
reason" grammar could never be opposed to reason; since, as speech
changes, itself changes... The case standin g thus, how it is that Mr.
White wishes to revive English which has become obsolete, and how
u White, Words and Their Uses, pp. 23, 24.

34

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
.it is that he is so sorely grieved by the English of his contemporaries, may
well perplex us. <2

Hall himself , though the chief cnt1c of White's extreme position, would not subscribe fully to Latham's "in language, whatever is, is right-" And although he makes the comparison, no
doubt with White in mind, that "A modern in toga and sandals
would be absurd enough; but a rigid purist is incomparably more
absurd,'; yet he is inclined to a modified acceptance of usage as the
arbiter of correctness. He says, "I do not hold . . . that ' usage is
the one criterion of proper speech.' The general consent of the
best writers and speakers among our contemporaries should be accepted for our guidance in matters of syntax an d 1'd'10m."43
Further on he repeats the same idea: "By accepted usage in speech
we understand that which is practiced, or approved, consentiently
and advertently by the best writers and speakers of any given
time."44 In this he presents a point of view shared by most of
the conservative writers on language and usage of today. That it
is subject to certain difficulties in application is revealed in the
ensuing chapters. ·
A few years earlier, in 1867, vVhitney's Language, and the
Sti,dy of Language, a series of lectures, was published. Whitney
was a brilliant and accurate scholar, sound in hi s linguistic theory
and liberal in his interpretations. It is a matter of surprise to the
linguistic student of today that his sound judgments had so
slight an effect on subsequent practice in schoolbook writing. On
the other hand, that his work was ignored is a witness to the re·
tarding power of tradition, or the ignorance of textbook writers,
or both. There is scarcely any position taken today in the scientific approach to the study of language which is not anticipated or
actually proposed in Whitney's lectures. In dismissing the eighteenth-century theories of "natural grammar" or "Universal grammar" he says, "Inner and essential connection between idea and
word . . . there is none, in any language upon earth." 45 This
statement utterly destroys White's appeal to " reason" or that
"misuse of words which can be justified by no authority, however
great, by no usage, however general." Discarding all authority in
language but that of custom, he says concltlsively, "Men's usage
"Hall Fitzedward , R ece11t Exemplificatiom of False Pltilolou , pp. 66 , 68.
•s Ibid .'. Modem English, p. xii.
"Ibid., p. 40.
"Whitney, Language, p. 32.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

35

makes language." 40 In further development of this decision, he
says. "The maxim usus norm.a loquand·i 'usage is the rule of
speech,' is of supreme and uncontrolled validity in every part and
parcel of every human tongue, and each individual can make his
fellows talk and write as he does just in proportion to the influence which they are disposed to concede to him."47 To this
idea he ·devotes considerable time, showing the influences of geographical factors, industry, dialects, slang,· and writers on the
shaping and changing of the language. Moreover, in turning
his attention to the schools by writing a simplified school grammar
he makes the very profound conm1ent which is still to lie learned
by most school-grammarians, "That th~ leading-object of the
study of English grammar is to teach the correct use of English is,
in my view, an error; and one which is gradually · being removed,
giving way to the sounder opinion that grammar is the reflective
study of language .. . .'' 48 To assure himself that Whitney's
prophecy is not fulfilled, the reader needs only to turn to any
school grammar at hand to find that " the chief purpose in treating
the g rammar situations is to eliminate errors from pupils' speech
and writing. . . ."49
Another careful student of language was T. R. Lounsbury,
whose work runs up into the present century. His History of the
English Language, appearing in 1879, shows a more traditional
spirit than is found in his later work, yet the following extract dispels all doubts as to the soundness of his views on language:
... the history of language, when looked at from the purely grammatical
point of view, is the little less than the history of corruptions . . . . But it is
equally true that these grammatical changes, or corruptions ... have
had no injurious effects upon the development of the language . . . . It is, at
the ·present time, a fashion to ~alk of our speech as being in some way
less pure and vigorous than it was in the days of Alfred .. . . But the
test of any tongue is not the grammatical or linguistic resources which
it may be supposed to possess; it is the use which it makes of the
resources it does possess . . . for it is a lesson which many learn with
difficulty, and some never lea rn at all, that purism is not purity.50

The acknowledgement of the authority of custom, though not
explicit, is nevertheless clearly seen in the foregoing passage; it
"Ibid., p. 3 7.
"Ibid. , p. 40.
411 Whitney, Essentials of English Grammar, preface.
4B Kirby and Carpenter. p. x.
w Lounsbury, History of the Englislt Language, pp. 351-353.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

is even more evident in Lounsbury's later works, particularly in
the Standard of Usage in English.
With the brief mention of two other works this section closes.
In 1889 W. B. Hodgson brought out a little volume called Errors
in the Use of English, a collection of quotations from authors who
had lapsed. His censures are not very severe, however, and in
some points.he is surprisingly liberal. Under the title Some Questions of Good English, R. . 0 . Williams in 1897 answered a number of propositions made by Fitzedward Hall, chiefly found in
articles in the current periodicals. Williams is reactionary, opposing even the conservative view of Hall. Concerning some particulars he says, "Several of the aberrances . . . are, it is true, of
almost universal currency in the United States; but yet, as having no good warrant in reason, and as being shunned by our most
approved stylists, they ought, doubtless, to be discouraged." 51
Here is "reason" popping up again as the arbiter of correctness,
after Whitney, Lounsbury, Hall and others. We shall find it again
in the twentieth century.

'natural' fitness or correctness' which neither authority nor custom
can gain-say. The other side is represented by Whitney and other
linguists, who see language as an objective phenomenon, controlled by, or rather dependent upon, the usage of all who speak
it. There is, of cottrse, no compromise between these two positions. Textbook writers, anxious· to uphold the tradition, but a!So
eager to display a scientific attitude are thereby led into errors, infelicities, and downright absurdities, of which they could not
possibly be guilty in writing for any other field of knowledge.
The reader is referred to subsequent chapters for the proof ' of
these assertions.

36

CONCLUSION

It has been the aim of this chapter to show, in merest outline,
the origin, growth, and hey-day of the prescriptive idea; of the
reliance upon authorities furnished by the philosophers and ipse
di.xit pedants of the eighteenth century for theories of correctness;
and of the rise of a scientific objective view of language which
tried and rejected all criteria of correctness in favor of custom,
which it announced to be sole arbiter of usage. The practice of the
early nineteenth century was found to be in contradiction with its
expressed theories, the latter being, however, but echoes of Campbell's canons of usage, repeated from book to book without affecting the ideas of the writers. With the growth of a science of
linguistics, interest centered upon usage itself, leading to wordy
and violent controversies in which the terms 'good' and 'bad'
English became prominent. This controversy is seen undiminished
at the close of the century. But from it two clear positions evolve,
which may be identified and carried over into the discussion of the
twentieth-century. The one is represented by White and his followers, who hold that language contains a certain innate or,
"Op. cit., p. 112.

37

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

CHAPTER III
CURRENT THEORIES OF CORRECTNESS
THE STANDARD OF CORRECTNESS IN TEXTBOOKS

In a leading article for the Chicago Tribttne for September 4,
1927, Mr. H. L. Mencken writes,
Why the science of philology should be backward in the United States I
don't know , but backward it is . . . . In most departments of English in
American Universities there are no philologists at all, but only dull drudges
who devote themselves idiotically to hunting for typographical errors in
the early editions of Chaucer or writing school texts. These drudges are
responsible for the current theory that the rules of a living language are
. to be formulated by calling conferences of pedagogues, none of whom
knows how to write. They belabor the poor boys and girls in the public
schools with the nonsensical doctrine that ain't is an evil word, and with
distinctions l:etween will and shall that disappeared from the speech of
the United States generations ago. The material that pours into their
ears every day makes no impression on them . . . . The books turned out
by these vapid pedants are dreadful, indeed.

This observation, even when allowance is made for the characteristic vigor of the author, is not far from the truth. As far
as can be determined by a careful scrutiny of the current textbooks,
their authors are not trained in philology or linguistic science ; in
some instances they do not know, or show no signs of knowing,
essential facts in the history and development of English. 1 It is
true, as the extracts to follow reveal , that they cleave to a traditional and authoritarian theory of correctness and are deaf to
the language which even they and their colleagues use. It is also
true that they set up distinctions and refinements of speech and
idiom for students to labor over, which have in most instances
faded out years ago or never actually existed. These specific matters are dealt with at length in Chapters IV , V , and VI. The purpose of this chapter, however, is to find out what textbook authors
1 Brilliant bits of philology like this may be found:
are the same word changed in pronunciation? "

38

"D id you know that god and good

39

ac_tually say about correctness in usage, and to compare their views
with those of other "authorities," and with the views of philologists
and linguists.
All the quotations which follow have come from the sixteen
textbooks analyzed for this investigation, but in order to avoid invidious comparison between texts now in current use, exact reference to ~ny one book has been omitted. The interested student may
fi_n? sumlar statements in almost any English grammar- or compos1t1on-book on his table.
c:>ne ?f the most interesting evidences of eighteenth-century
survival 1s contained in the statement that " The rules of grammar
are bas~d on principles which are much the same in all languages,
and which may be applied to one expression after another." Here
in essence, is the doctrine of universal grammar. Of co~rse j~
was not rigorously followed in writing the text, or the book would
never l~ave found print, but it indicates the grammatical theory of
the wnt~r, and may explain, in part, his attitude toward specific
matters m the body of the book. The same author writes in his
preface. "This book . . . gives much space to rules for correctness. "
Quite naturally we expect to find Campbell 's trilogy of good
usage; that usage must be national, reputable, and present; and we
are not disappointed. It appears in one form or another in the
more advanced texts, and is present implicitly in them all. One
states it negatively, "Words and phrases that are not considered
good by most well-educated people are called barbarisms. They
are often divided into three groups: Those that are not reputable,
those that are not national, and those that are not in present use."
It appears more often in the positive form, like the following
"I n general a word meets the demands of formal expression or '
as we more often say, good usage, when it has not lapsed with 'age'.
when it is employed . . . by the majority of standard authors,
when it is understood throughout the nation; or, in other words,
when it is present, reputable, and national use." Limited as thi s
view of correctness in usage is. the authors themselves go far
beyond it in excluding useful forms. Almost all the items in
the next three chapters, though condemned in the textbooks, will
be found to have present, reputable, and national standing. Like
their ninet ee nth~century predecessors, the present-day writers of

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS
40

41

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

schoolbooks are setting up a standard 9f usage which they proceed to repudiate in specific instances. One even quotes Emerson
as saying, "Life lies behind us as the quarry from whence we
get tiles and copestones for the masonry of today. This is the way
to learn granunar. Colleges and books only copy the language
which the field and work-yard have made." But there is .little
evidence in this or any other text of the "language which the
field and work-yard" have recently made. On the contrary, there
is ample evidence that the college and the book, like rich children
of lowly parents, repudiate the very flesh and blood of which
they are made.
No matter with what words or in what form the various
statements of correctness in usage may appear, when reduced to
tl;ieir lowest terms they amount to this: " ... the laws of language
are derived from the usage of the best writers and speakers." It
. is not unfair to ·say that this is the standard of correctness in usage
expressed or implied in all the current textbooks on English. Yet
as a canon of correctness it is worthless. To begin with, there is
no agreement among standard authors. Every disputed usage,
save perhaps the most ignorant of illiteracies, can be found in
one or more standard authors. It has previously been pointed
out that Murray and Brown in the preceding century solemnly
declared allegiance to the same standard, but proceeded with no
sense of inconsistency to 'correct' the usage of Shakespeare, Jonson, the King James Bible, Milton, and others. If the authors
who make the standard of correctness are themselves open to correction, what has become of the standard? In the second place,
while this standard may fulfill the requirements of reputable and
national usage, it tends to ignore completely present usage. If
there is doubt as to the orthodoxy in matters of usage of former
writers, whose works have withstood the test of time, who can
be sure about 'standard' authors in the present? Moreover, if
standard authors are those who violate none of the rules and prescriptions of the textbooks, the modern literary Diogenes will have
a long and fruitless search.
The standard of 'best writers' leads, also, to the fallacy of a
fixed and unchangeable standard of usage. As one text puts it,
"Long established usage has set up rules concerning the correctness, or incorrectness, of certain expressions in the English lan-

guage. Such rules are no less strict than the rules set up by
Grammar and Rhetoric." The use of capitals for the last two
nouns represents without doubt the writer's feeling of reverence
for grammar and rhetoric. He seeks to make usage a similar
fixed and revered entity, a sort of "faith once for all delivered to
~he saints." What room is there for organic growth or change
m such a statement ?
Out of this conception of good usage derived from a composite
authority of 'good writers' grow two significant fallacies which
greatly influence present-day language attitudes. One is the fallacy of confusing a purely literary standard with good · usage. As
one writer says, " . . . formal expression, or, as we more often
say,' good usage . . . ." This is an unequivocal lumping together of
formal expression and good usage, as though they were one and
the same thing. It automatically defines as "bad usage" any English expressions not regularly a part of formal style. Yet the
uses of the formal style are relatively few even for cultivated
spea.kers and _writers ; certainly more than half of their language
use IS on the mformal or colloquial level. Therefore, if the formal
style serves for less than half the language needs of cultivated
adults, how much less it is needed by children in school! The
school books, however, are all built around the theory that the
only good English is formal literary English ; that one standard
only prevails, metici,tlously observed by all cultivated persons. Such
a theory is obviously far removed from fact, yet the writers of
textbooks, and their professional colleagues, who daily do violence
to such_ a theory', see no inconsistency between the theory they ex~ound m book and classroom, and their own widely differing practice. And, as is illustrated in the succeeding chapters, they frequently fail to observe their own rules in the writing of books on
grammar and composition. Despite their rules, the power of the
language itself is too much for them.
The second serious fallacy is the feeling of responsibility for
the purity of the language. When good usage is considered to be
a fixed standard, departure from it (as it is traditionally conceived)
becomes not only error but moral obliquity. The student who
goes wrong must be "set right"; the professional colleague who
. persists in error must be made to feel the weight of his sin a~d
the heinous nature of his treachery. It is in this spirit that one

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

professor writes in defense of the subjunctive mood: "Both its
own inherent merits and the dictates of a worthy patriotism demand for it a fairer treatment than that which it receives from
many . English grammarians." A grammatical form is 'unfairly'
treated by grammarians, an ill which may be remedied by an appeal to the 'clictates of a worthy patriotism' and its ' inherent
merits.' The subjunctive mood, in this writer's opinion, is seriously neglected by writers of grammars; with no reference whatever .to current usage he appeals to his colleagues on the grounds
of 'patriotism' to reinstate it because of its 'inherent merits.' The
feeling of . obligation to 'preserve' the language leads intelligent
scholars to such absurdities as this.
The doctrine of absolute correctness · also leads to striking
contradictions in the statements found in the same book One
author writes, "Localisms, or provincialisms, are expressions that
are peculiar to a particular part of a country. If a localism is recognized as good in the locality where it is used, we should not hesitate to use it in that locality." On the very next page, however, in
listing some of these expressions which have very wide acceptibility, he says, "The following list contains barbarisms from various
parts of our country . . . . If you have been using some of these
expressions, determine never to use them again, for they are
shunned by cultured people.'' The list includes fix, (to repair),
got (with have), gotten, providing (as conjunction), and proven.
The cultivated people who 'shun' these expressions are very few
indeed. Yet were they actually 'shunned,' it seems scarcely conceivable that a writer could so flatly contradict himself as in the
two passages quoted.
This example illustrates the fundamental difficulty of the
text-writer. Having some smattering of linguistic theory, he attempts to state in his general discussion a scientific and organic
theory of language, and often succeeds, like his predecessor of the
nineteenth century, in arriving at a sound statement concerning
usage. But when he gets to specific illustrations his courage fails
him, or the weight of tradition is too heavy for him, and he reiterates the rules and prescriptions of his grammatical ancestors , apparently unconscious of the ridiculous and inexcusable contradictions between theory and practice. There is also a third influence
added to lack of courage and the weight of tradition ; books which

depart too far from tradition will not sell. vVith regard to this
matter · it is perhaps not unjust to quote again the comment of
Goold Brown. "It is cruel in any man to look narrowly into the ,
faults of an author who peddles a school book for bread. . . · .
Far be it from me to notice any such character, except with kindness and charity."
The twentieth-century textbooks present, as has been seen, a
conflicting and contradictory view of usage. Many of the eighteenth-century theories still survive, though modified and softened,
and blended into the two essential attitudes of the nineteenth century, that English needs correction and improvement, and that
grammar is the science for the correction of language. These theories were found · to be still operative in the practical .details of the
textbooks, though often contradicted by more scientific statements
of theory in the introductions and general discussions. As guides
to· current usage, therefore, the contemporary English textbooks
are misleading, if not actually bad. Until their authors are trained
in linguistic science, have became observers of English as it -is,
and are willing to . fearlessly cast off unsound traditional theories
and precepts, there will be no school-texts in grammar and composition which may honestly claim to be consistent with current
English usage.

42

43

THE STANDA RD OF CORRECTNESS IN NON-ACADEMIC
'AUT HORITIES'

Interest in correctness in English t1Sage is not confined to the
school-room or to college halls. Along with the discussion of politics, automobiles, and bridge, the discussion of right and wrong
usage and pronunc.iation holds a never-failing interest for the
general public, and is often accom.panied by a degree of warmth
comparable only with the pathetic ignorance displayecJ.2 This

I'

2 " The public is extraordinaril y interested in all sorts of q\tcstions conn ec ted with
English Philology . . . You may hear these matters disc ussed in raih..·ay ca rriages and
smok ing rooms; you may read long lelters about them in th e press, adorned so metimes with
a di splay of curious information , collec ted at rand om. misunderstood, wrongly interpreted,
and used in an absurd way to bolster up prepostero us theories. No, the subject-matter of
English Philology possesses a stran ge fasci nation for the man in the stree t. but a lm ost everythin R he thinks and says abo ut it is incredibly and hopelessly wrong. There is no subject
which atlracts a larger number of cranks and quacks than English Philology. In no subject,
probably, is the knowledge of the educated public at a lower ebb. The ge neral ignorance
concerning it is so profou nd that it is ve ry difficult to persuade people that the re rea lly is a
considerable mass of well-asce rtain ed fact. and a definite body of doct rine on linguistic
ques tions." \Vyl <l 1 H. C., English Pltilology in English Univ ersities , p. lO .

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GlMMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

desire to know, coupled with the social pressure felt by nonconformists in speech, has beert capitalized by various individuals
and agencies for commercial profit, usually tak1ng the form of
handbooks of 'correctness' and home study courses in 'good
English.' The advertising pages of all leading periodicals .and
newspapers carry familiar announcements beginning with "Do you
say . . . ?" followed by a list of good English idioms held up to
scorn, or else offering the reader the opportunity to become a
Daniel Webster or a William Jennings Bryan in fifteen minutes a
day. All these books and courses are endorsed by 'authorities,'
whose chief claim to the title consists usually of financial acumen
and proficiency in the writing of advertisements.
One of the most widely advertised 'guides' to good usage,
and, if we may believe the publishers, one of ·t he most widely
used, is a little book by Ambrose Bierce called Write It Right.
Although written in the nineteenth century, it was not published
until 1909, since which time "its sale has been progressive, and
rapidly increasing of recent years. Something like 5,000 volumes
have been sold within the past six months. Write It R ight is used
as a textbook in many schools, both secondary and colleges. . . .''3
This book, a nineteenth-century product in the R. G. White tradition, can be seen from the publisher's account to have wide circulation and significant influence. Yet it is without doubt the most
ignorant, bigotted, and misinforming writing on usage since White's
work in 1870. Some extracts from its preface and contents will
establish this charge bey~nd a doubt. In the preface the author
announces:

there remain but two possible standards of correctness: the natural
or inherent fitness of words, as upheld by White, or the ipse dixit
authority of Bierce himself. The latter is conspicuously dominant.
Another widely advertised, and widely distributed manual
is offered to the public by the syndicated newspapers. It is called
The Word Book, and contains sections on pronunciation, spelling,
and usage. It is endorsed, moreover, by what appears to be excellent and reputable authority. The fly-lead announcement states:
"To aid people in the correct use of words, the Haskin Information service asked the Funk and Wagnalls Company, Publishers of
the New Standard Dictionary, to compile this booklet of words
most frequently misused, misspelled, and mispronounced. The
same leading world authorities who compiled and corrected the
dictionary are authorities for the usages in this book.'; Yet these
"leading world authorities" do not hesitate to condemn a large
number of good English idioms in excellent repute and wide usage.
Some of the condemned uses are:

44

The author's main purpose in this book is to · teach prec1s1on in
writing . . . . It is attained by choice of the word that accurately and
adequately expresses what the writer has in mind . . . . Few words have
more than one literal and serviceable meaning, however many metaphorical,
derivative, related, or even unrelated, meanings lexicographers may think
it worth while to gather from all sorts and conditions of men, with which
to bloat their absurd and misleading dictionaries. This actual and serviceable meaning-not always determined by derivation, and seldom by popular
usage-is the one affirmed, according to his light, by the author of this
little manual of solecisms.

Since · usage and etymology are ruled out of court, and the radiation and transference of meaning in words is declared absurd,
1

From a letter by the publisher to the present writer, dated December 3, 1931.

above
aggravate
and
apt
can
each other
got
have got
if
myself
neither
one's
only
proven
providing
slow
was
w ays

as in

" "
" "
" "

,, "
" "
" "
" ,,

,,

,,

" "
" "

,, "

45

"The above statement."
"She is easily aggravated."
"Come and visit me."
"He Is apt to fa_ll down ."
"Can I speak to you?"
"The people greeted each other."
"I haven't got time."
"I've got to see you."
"Ask him if he is going."
"He found Mary and myself."
with a plural verb
"One cannot see one's own faults."
"I only saw him yesterday."
"He has proven himself correct."
"I shall go providing you come with me."
as an adverb.
~ If he was able to walk."
·" My office is a long ways off."

These are some of the more striking examples of false guidance.
Many of the items are corrections of vulgarisms or gross "illiteracies which of course are properly included. There are two criticisms to be directed against this manual. One has already been
illustrated; namely, the inclusion of perfectly good usages of wide
currency as incorrect. The second is that in the mixture of gross

46

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

vulgarisms, . illiteracies, and questioned usage, there is no distinction made concerning the levels of usage, or the fitness of words
to ~he occasion. It is clearly implied that all the usages are pros~nbed always; here again is the familiar fallacy of the literary
dialect, and an extremely narrow conception of it, being confused with good usage. No figures as to the distribution of this
booklet are available, but since it is advertised in all syndicated
newspapers throughout the country, and may be obtained in exch~nge for a few stamps, the circulation must be enormous.
Having looked into two of the widely distributed "Guides" to
good usage, it remains to examine one of the home-study courses
in 'correct' English for adults. The director of one such cours~
says,
Careless speech is due in part to ignorance, but much of it is the result
of association and inattention. In many cases certain errors are so
familia~ that we do not realize they are errors until some purist points
them out. The ear of the cultured would be shocked at "he done it "
or "I ain't" but the same ear might be so accustomed to other incorr~t
phrases that it would detect no error in such. expressions as "those sort of
people," "where will I meet you?" "that data is wrong," "Joan me a dol_, Jar," ... "friends for dinner," and so on.4

The key to the attitude taken by this writer is found in the word
'purist,' here used in the complimentary sense. Correct usage is a
matter of fundamental and inherent right and wrong; a cultivated
person accustomed · to hearing and using a certain expr.ession
through a life-time in good society is nevertheless committing
error -in using the expression if it is inherently wrong. Custom
and reputability have no authority in usage ; abstract 'correctness'
is the only safe guide. It is according to this theory, then, that
the author condemns has got (compulsion), have got (possession),
not a bit of water, throu.gh (finished), tomorrow is Wednesday,
our rent has been raised, and many other good expressions.
In an article criticising this course, (though without naming
it) Professor S. A. Leonard writes,
Now the important thing about this advertisement is that every line of it
quoted above evidences an abysmal ignorance of the facts of cultivated
English usage, in spite of the fact that the advertisers begin by insisting
on the importance of such knowledge .. . . In .short, the authors of the
advertisement quoted could hardly have made more mistakes in as many

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

47

lines if they had set deliberately to work at misrepresenting all the ascertained facts of usage.5

The reader's attention is called to the special trick employed
by advertisers of this and similar courses. The examples printed
to arouse interest in the course are rarely or never matters of real
illiteracy or violations of good taste, nor are they examples of the
muddy syntax of which even cultivated persons are frequently
guilty. ·Quite to the contrary, they are nearly always matters of
divided usage of three classes: usage regionally acceptable but
not entirely national, usages fully established in lighter discourse
. but less frequent in literature, and usages idiomatically established,
but contrary to analogy or traditional grammar. It is because
cultivated people use these expressions naturally and unconsciously,
but without reflection on their origin or authority, that the commercial purists make issue of them. In this manner are ignorance
and bigotry foisted upon a willing but uncritical public, which
annually pays many thousands of dollars for the propagation of
misinformation.
Thus far it has been established by contemporary evidence that
the theories of language of the eighteenth century, and the attitudes toward language and grammar which grew out of them
in the nineteenth century, still have a considerable hold upon the
language theory and practice of the present century, both in the
schools and colleges, and in non-academic agencies. It is time
now for a view of contrasting attitudes, as presented by linguists,
historic grammarians, and other progressive students of language.
THEORIES OF LANGUAGE AND CORRECTNESS IN CONTEMPORARY
WRITERS ON ENGLISH LINGUISTICS

The tone and spirit of contemporary students of language in
rliscussing theories of language and usage is admirably sununed
up in the words of George 0. Curme, retiring president of the
Modern Language Association, December, 1931: "English grammar is simply the English way of saying things." 6 This definition
•From the presidential address, P.M.L .A., Vol. XLVI, p. 1420.

cuts straight through the traditional cant to the very heart of the
language itself, denying all authority but that of custom as cur-·
rently observed. To make such a definition possible as a public

•Advertisement in the Christian Science Monitor, October 14 , 1926.

5

1929.

Leonard, S. A. , "Educational Quackery" Saturday Review oj ·Literature, March 23,. ·"

48

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

and official statement, two highly significant developments in the
study of language had to take place. One was the historical and
comparative study of language, already spoken of, which, in
tracing out the relationships between languages and establishing
tpeir common origins, incidentally contributed attitudes and techniques for the study of a single language on objective and scientific
procedures. The second development .originated in the field · of
psychology, in which language was studied as a form of human
behavior, the product of social needs, originating, developing, and
changing as the needs changed, and only truly valid as it continued to meet the current needs. The influence of these two
fields of investigation in language will be very evident in the quotations which follow; selected from a wide group of contemporary
writers. It will be of great value to the student to compare these
statements on the nature and function of language with those
of the eighteenth century.7
Speech is a human activity that varies wothout assignable limit as we
pass from social group to social group, because it is a purely historical
heritage of the group, the product of long-continued social usage .8
Language exists only in so far as it is actually used . . . W'hat significant
changes take place in it must exist, to begin with, as individual variations.
. . . The drift of a language is constituted by the unconscious selection on
· the part of its speakers of these individual variations that are cumulative
in. some special direction. This direction may be inferred, in the main,
from the past history of the language.O
The essence of language is human activity . . . the speaker and the
hearer, and their relations to one another, should never be lost sight of if
'M! want to understand the nature of language and of that part of language
which is dealt with in grammar. But in former times this was often overlooked, and words and forms were often treated as if they were things
or natural objects with an existence of their own .10
Language is conventional, and words mean what .the speaker intends and
the h.earer understands.11
... If English is to be a continually progressive creation, then it must
escape from the tyranny of the reason and must regain some of the
freedom of impulse and emotion which must have been present in the
primitive creative origins of language.12
Grammar, in the sense which we usually give to the word, that is to say,
not a mere neutral registration of what our speech-forms are, but a regu'See pages 19, 20.
11 Sapir, Languaie , p . 2.
• Sapir, Language, pp. 165, 166.
1o Jespersen , Philosophy of Grammar, p. 2.
"Greenough and Kittredge, Words, p. 312.
11 Krapp, The Knowltdge of English , p. 513.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

49

lative ideal of what, accordir.g to the Jaws of logic and analogy they ought
to be,-grammar in this sense is the natural enemy of idiom, and continually preys upon it. . . . Owing to the efforts ·of these grammarians,
a number of English idiomatic usages have been stigmatized as incorrect,
and driven from standard speech.13
English grammar is often said to be the science which tells how to
speak and write the English language correctly. But this definition is
manifestly too narrow. It assumes that any English which is not correct
has nQ gramrnar.H

In these statements on the nature of language and English in
particular, drawn from six writers of three nations, there i~ no
reference to language as an entity, or the mirror of nature; no reference to analogy, or classical tradition, or logic; no reliance upon
the opinion of grammarians or the ipse dix·it . pronouncements ot
critics. The other two theories of the eighteenth century, historicai
etymology and good usage, so .often repudiated in former times,
have been elevated to a position of prime importance, though
expanded in meaning beyond the concepts of the eighteenth century. In the discussion of the theories of correctness which follows
these two last concepts receive fuller treatment. The contemporary
. theory of language, then, is that of a living, growing organism,
having its origin in the need of mankind to communicate thoughts
and ideas, and having validity only insofar as it continues to serve
this need. Any reference to an internal, inherent, or absolute
authority for language forms is conspicuously absent.
The purpose of the eighteenth-century criticism of English was
to purify, regiment, and fix the language. The appeal to etymology
and custom as arbiters of usage was, therefore, not nearly so much
an investigation of the phenomena of language as an effort to find
authority for the establishment of a ;'correct" form. In this fact
lies the reason for such wholesale repudiation of custom as is
found in Campbell and others. But the contemporary linguist
approaches his task with no such a priori notions. Like his colleague, the biologist or the chemist, he approaches his material
objectively and with an open mind, determined to learn by observation what English is now, by historical research what it was at
any given time, and by reference to linguistics, psychology, and
sociology the reasons for its origin, development, and change.
These attitudes will be found clearly expressed or implied in the
following extracts on good or "correct" English.
13 Smith, L. P .. "English Idioms," S.P .E. Tract No. Xll, p. 10.
"Krapp , Th e Knowledge. of . English, p. 228.

50

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Good English cannot be known merely by definition, it must be known
also by experience. English which satisfies a notion of what English
ought to be but does not satisfy the vital linguistic moment in which it
actively appears cannot be called good . . . the only sound test of the
goodness of a linguistic action is to be found within the action itself. lil
Good English varies according to the occasion, just as our dress varies
according to the occasion ... . Loose colloquial English ... is frequently
as appropriate as a loose-fitting garment in moments of reJa·xation. The
lesser grammarians, who so generally present only one form of English,
not only show their bad taste, but do a great deal of harm in that they
import erroneous ideas of Janguage.16
To be good, English must not only meet the practical demands of utility,
it must also satisfy the inner sense of goodness of the speaker or writer.17
The only basis for correctness in grammar must be usage . . . . Where
this usage is practically unanimous there is no appeal, but where it is
divided no one form or construction is the sole correct one. In case of
divided usage a reasonable guiding principle of decision would be to
choose that form or construction which is in accord with the tendencies or
patterns of English as these can be seen from the history of the Janguage. 1 8
The other possible idea of good English for an American . .. is that
his English shall be true, both to its great inheritance and to the taste and
sense and blood and rhythm of life, that are his own.111

Two striking points of comparison with the eighteenth-century
theories of good English may be seen in the foregoing citations.
First, that any reference to a purified, regulated, or fixed language
is conspicuously lacking; all definitions of good English rest upon
an assumption of relative values in which 'good' is known from
'bad' purely on the basis of immediate satisfaction as a means of
communication. Second, that although custom is taken indisputably for the guide to usage, the arbitrament of reputable, national,
and present factors in the determination of custom is abandoned
for a more organic concept; that is, immediate satisfaction to the
hearer and speaker, or writer and reader. Good English is, therefore, as one writer puts it, "comfortable" English; a form of
speech meeting the expressional and social needs of the speaker
and writer on the one hand, and the comprehensional and social
standards of the hearer and reader on the other. Such a viewpoint,
sound as it is linguistically, psychologically, and socially, has yet
to find its way into a textbook.
1 • Krapp, The Kn.owledge of English, p. 5.
:ui Curme, George, Syntax, p. vi.
"Ibid., p. 178.
18 Fries, T eaching of the English Language, p . 43 .
tt Canby, H. S., "Correctness," Saturda'>' R e1 iew of Lileraturc, Vol. V, p. 137 .
1

51

Closely correlated with the theories of good English in the
present day, as expressed by students of language, are the statements and recommendations of these same scholars with regard to
the teaching of English. After all, the teaching of English in the
schools has no purpose other than the preparing of students to
speak and write adequately in the vernacular, with sufficient fluency
to meet the normal needs of expression, and sufficient accuracy to
insure soCial acceptability. But as we have seen in the first section
of this chapter the current textbooks still cleave to the theory that
the purpose of the teaching of English and especially grammar is
to establish "correctness," by which is meant conformity to traditional and authoritarian standards. It is small wonder, then, that
the comments of the linguistic students on present English teaching are censorious, reflecting considerable dissatisfaction with
the theory and practice of contemporary English teaching. ·
Lingt~istic students Javor a radical change in the teaching of
the English language, a shifting of the emphasis upon blind uniformity to an intelligent · and sympathetic understanding of the
language processes as they explain the current phenomena of
English. Si.ich was Whitney's earnest .hope, when he said in 1877,
"That the leading object of the study of English grammar is to
teach the correct use· of English, is, in my view, an error, and one
~hich is gradually being removed, giving way to the sounder opin1011 . that grammar is the reflective study of language. . . "20
~h1tney was too optimistic; the passing of fifty-five years has
failed to remove this error from the schoolbooks.
It has been the purpose of this chapter to present in contrast
the theories of language. and usage as they appear in the school
textbooks and in other influential sources of information with the
theories of language and usage held by specialists in the field of
language. There should linger no doubt as to the width of the
disparity between them; it may be asserted with conviction that
insofar as theories of language and usage are concerned, the curren~ textbooks as a group represent a language attitude fifty years
behmd that of the linguists. The following three chapters are devoted to an analysis of the specific items of grammar, syntax, and
usage as they appear in the texts, to establish the fact that in
practice as well as in theory the books are hopelessly outmoded.
20

\Vhitn ey , Essentials of E11glis'1 Grammar, preface.

GR.AMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

53

ception of the adjective, they are not inflected) are matters of
syntax or usage, and are treated in appropriate chapters.
CHAPTER IV
PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR
The materials dealt with in this chapter constitute items of
actual morphology, distinguished from syntax, which is discussed
in Chapter V, and miscellaneous usage, presented in Chapter VI.
It is exceedingly difficult in a language as analytic as the English
to determine exactly where .structure ends and syntax begins, and
for that reason the basis of selection for items in this chapter is
somewhat arbitrary. Only those grammatical matters which seem
necessarily a part of a formal presentation of the English grammatical system find a place in this section. For example, the use
the shall and will in a particular sentence may appear at. first
glance to be a question of syntax, but when . it is recalled that
nearly all complete grammar books present the paradigm of the
simple future tense as :
I shall (sing)
thou wilt (sing)
he will (sing)
we shall (sing)
you will (sing)
they will (sing)
with no alternative forms except the more common second singular
you will sing, then the use of will as a first person auxilliary becomes definitely .a matter of morphology. On the other hand, the
use of so as an intensifying adverb in no way alters the grammatical category of the word but simply involves word order in the
sentence, and is rightly considered a problem of syntax.
As may be conjectured from the arbitrary use of the word
grammar in this chapter, the parts of speech most affected are those
of major importance in speech and writing; namely, the verb, the
adverb, the noun, and the pronoun. $uch problems as arise in
connection with the other parts of speech (since, with the ex-

THE VERB

Present tense.
Every one of the sixteen textbooks analyzed for this study lists
the present tense, active voice, indicative mode of the verb as
follows:
I sing
you sing
he sings
we sing
you sing
they sing
No mention is made in any text of the fact that these forms as
listed do not represent the ordinary present tense of actual usage,
but rather constitute a sort of potential or habitual predication,
from which the element of time is almost entirely lost. "I sing"
is equivalent to saying "I am able to sing," or "I usually sing."
The regular and common present tense form to express action in
the present is "I am singing." If a parent should inquire what ·
his son was doing at the moment with the question, "What is
Tommy doing?" the answer "He plays" would be so unusual as to
excite comment. "He is playing" is without doubt the expected
answer. Textbooks and formal grammars have not accepted this
common usage at all, still naming the form in ing with the present
tense of the verb to be as the present progressive, a conventional
name with little or no real meaning. As a matter of fact the expression "I am singing" may be either a statement of immediate
action, or a clear future, as in the sentence, "I am singing there
tomorrow."
The timeless quality of the simple present tense forms is readily
recognized from a different angle, nevertheless, as the following
quotations illustrate:
General truths and present facts should be expressed in the present
tense, whatever the tense of the principal verb may be.1
1

Brooks, p. 2 70.

54

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
Universal truths, or general propositions into which time relations do
not enter, should usually be expressed in the present tense .2

''

The second statement is tenlpered with the word "usually"
inspired no doubt by a reali zation of the fact that universal truths
are not invariably expressed in the present tense. "I f for such
statements the present tense is generally used, it is in order to
affirm that they are valid no\Y. But other tenses may occasionally
be used: We have the so-called 'gnomic preterit' as in Shakespeare's 'Men were deceivers ever'-what has hitherto been true,
is so still and will remain so to the end of time." 3
In unstudied speech the feeling for agreement in tenses seems
to overbalance the feeling for the timelessness of the prese1~t
tense in expressing general truths. Hence when one says "I knew
that Washington was the capital of the United States" there is no
time quality felt in the word was since the word knew receives all
the stress. In its unaccented form it constitutes what Professor
Jespersen calls the 'gnomic preterit,' meani.ng that "what has
hitherto been true is so still and will remain so to the end of time,"
or at least for an indefinite period. The statement concerning the
expression of general truths might well be, therefore, "present
facts and general truths are frequently expressed in the present
tense because it is felt to be timeless. The past tense is also sometimes used, in agreement with a preceding past tense, when the
idea of time is entirely absent from the second verb."
The school granunars of the future must distinguish clearly
the uses of the present tense with time value and the uses without
time value. Not until they do so will their treatment of the present
tense be in accord with current usage.

Past · tense.
The textbooks quite generally list the usual past tense forms of
the verb, but none of them mention the following fairly common
alternatives for expressing action habitual in the past :
The participles accustomed ·and wont with the infinitive.
The verb med with the infinitive.
The auxilliary would.4
' Raymond, p. 203
' J espersen, Philosophy of Grammar, p. 259 . See also p . 54.
•Lambert, "Solidary Modification: Modes of Predication," America" Speech , .Vol. 4,
p . 29.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE JN TEXTBOOKS

The forms might profitably be included in any discussion of predication in past time, for although they cannot be strictly classified
as past tense forms, they occupy an important place in ordinary
speech.
In the inflection of irregular verbs, the leveled forms of the
past tense, i.e., those in more or less preponderant use at the
present time, are generally listed without alternative, despite the
not infrequent occurrence of we s-ung, the sh.ip sunk, and others.
One author, however, perhaps with qualms of historical conscience,
lists the following alternative forms for the past tense:
began, begun
shrank, shrunk
sang, sung
sank, sunk
swam, swum5

Another lists a single alternative form:
Swung, or swang.6

That this particular verb should be singled out is particularly
astonishing in view of the fact that "Swang" has practically no
history as a form, and is strongly condemned by handbooks and
guides to good usage.
Concerning these verbs the New English Dictionary says:
Sink: The use of sunk as the p . t. has been extremely common. Johnson (1755i says "pret. I sunk, anciently sank ."
Sing. Sung was the usual form of the p. t. in the 17th and 18th centuries,
and is given by Smart in 1836 with the remark "Sang . . . is less in use."
Recent usage, however, has mainly been in favor of sang.
s.wing. p . t. SWltng, rarely swang.
swim. In Middle English p. t. sing. swamme; plur. swum.men. standard
p. t. swam.
shrink. The p. t . originally had vowel change-I shrank, we shrunke(n),
but as early as the 14th century the properly plural form is found with
a singuar subject and shrank, shrunk, become frequent in the 15th century. Shrnnk is the normal p . t. in the 18th century and still survives.
begin. As in other verbs having grammatical vowel change in the p. t.
there was an early tendency to level the forms ... which has resulted in
the establishment of began as the standard form; but an alternative from
the old plural begun has also come down to the presen t day .
5 Raymond, 1925, p. 218 .
'Kirby and Carpenter, Book Seven , p. 177.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

56

The discussion of the word drunk in the New English Dictionary is more full : "The past tense had originally vowel change
(I drank, we drunk) but leveled out to (I , we drank). From the
16th to the 19th centuries dntnk as a past tense again appeared."
This remark applies to England and to some extent to colonial
America. Later on in the history of the United States the word
drunk even as a past participle became so obj~ctionable that the
past tense form drank was pressed into service. Today have drank
is old-fashioned rather than illiterate.
One of the textbook authors 7 lists the principal parts of the
verb sink as sink, sank, sunk, with no alternative in the past tense.
But on another page of the same text 8 occurs the quotation, "Down
sunk the bell with a gurgling sound." (Southey). Although the
quotation is used here as an illustration of an entirely different
matter, the bright-eyed student might well ask why Mr. Southey's
grammar differs from that of the textbook. 9
. Contemporary textbooks may perhaps be forgiven for the
failure to note these alternative past tense forms, but there seems
to be no justifiable reason for making issues of them in exercises.
It would seem advisable in presenting the past tense forms of
irregular verbs to give briefly and untechnically a little of their
history, together with the alternate forms of the common verbs.
The form now preponderant may be clearly indicated as a preferred form without doing violence to the history of the word.

Future tense.
The future tense receives a good share of attention in contemporary textbooks since the authors no doubt feel that all contemporary speech usage and a fair amount of current writing usage
is in direct violation of the traditional rules for the future. That
the rules may be wrong and current usage right apparently has
not occurred to the textbook writers. The following statements
and rules are typical of the treatment of the future tense in the
textbooks examined.
Shall and will are used with the infinitive of a verb, to form the future tense . Shall is an auxilliary of the future in the first person, and w ill
in the second and third persons.
'Raymond, p. 127.

! i!'~:··r:r~ ~?,;,k
1

is particularly int eres ting in this context because it is used as a
singular. The past tense forms in early Middle English were sing~Jar, sank: plural , su'!k . In
Mr . Southey 's usage the plural form had become preponderant : m our own day the singular
form is preferred.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

57

To make a promise or to express the determination of the speaker,
will is used in the first person and shall in the second and third persons.10

In spite of the rules for the future tense, printed in traditional
form in. the heart of the text, one of the textbooks has for its first
sentence, "We will begin our study of grammar and composition . . ." 11
Fifteen of the sixteen textbooks forming the basis of this investigation, covering a period of years from 1900 to 1930, present
without exception the traditional rules for the formation of the
future tense. It is all the more remarkable, then, that the most
recent book should break away entirely from the tradition and .
omit the future tense from all discussion. In a very modest section
entitled "tense" a brief discussion of the time values of verb forms
is offered. The table subjoined presents examples of the various
tenses, the future as follows :
Future: I will do, I will see, I will hear, I will know.12

Not only is the future tense passed by as an item not worthy of
discussion, but the very examples violate the rules of earlier textbooks. Can such rashness be justified? Compare now the statements of linguists and students of the historical aspects of language
concerning the expression of the future.
a) J ohannis Wallis, in his grammar of English, (1615 ) written in
Latin, was the first to state the rule for the use of shall in the first person,
and will in the second and third persons. This discovery was made by
Professor Fries.
Whenever the subject of the verb is represented as in control of the
situation, will is used in all three persons. Shall . . . is 'used in all three
persons to represent that some other force, not the subject of the verb, is
in control.
Since shall is rather uncommon, it is, when stressed or emphasized, frequently heard in the first person .f or determination.13
b) The common school grammars of modern English usually give as the
one means of indicating future time the combination of shall and will with
the infinitive form of the verb and name it the future tense. Some give two
forms of the future tense : one for simple futurity and another for determination. As a matter of fact, however, the use of the auxilliaries shall
and will with the infinitive is but one of several important methods of expressing the future and certainly does not deserve the title "the future tense.''
Hyde, Book Two, 1900, p. 13 1.
McFadden and F erguson. p. I.
"Kirby and Carpenter, Book Eight, p. 31 2.
"Leonard , S. A. , "Shall and Will ," American Speec h, Vol. IV , p. 497 .
10

u

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

58

Some other combinations having a claim to be included in an English future
tense are:
(a) The verb to be + prepositional infinitive.
(He is to go with the committee.)

+

(b) The verb to be about
prepositional infinitive.
(The man is about to dive from the bridge.)

+

+

(c) The verb to be
going
prepositional infinitive.
(They are going to go by automobile.)
. Then too, the present form of the verb frequently refers to future
time both in subordinate clauses and in independent sentences, when some
other word than the verb, or the context in general, indicates the time idea.
(If it rains, I cannot go.) (He returns from his trip tomorrow.)
On the other hand, the use of shall and will to express determination
(sometimes called "the emphatic future" or '.'the colored future" or "the
modal future") is no more entitled to be included in the name "future
tense" than many other combinations of verbs, which, because of their
meaning, look to the future for fulfillment :
I desire to go
I want to go
I need to go
I intend to go
I expect to go
I ought to go
I've got to go

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

mean to go
have to go
may go
must go
can go
might go
should go

The suggestion, then, which I should offer as the means of accounting for
the facts which we find concerning the expression of the future is this. The
grounds upon which the future is usually predicted are desire, hope, intention, resolve, determination, compulsion, necessity, or possibility. Any locutions which express any of these ideas related to the future may be
taken up and developed as future tense signs. The course of development
is in the direction of their· losing their full word meanings and thus also
losing their limitation to the particular meanings suggested by their origin.
They tend to become future tense signs but with colorings which range
from an almost pure future sense to distinctly modal ideas.14
c) I shall here give a survey of the principal ways in which languages
have come to possess expressions for future time.
( 1) The present tense is used in the future sense.

(2) Volition. Both E. uJill and Dan. vil to a certain degree retain
traces of the original meaning of real volition, and therefore E . will go
cannot be given as a pure "future tense," though it approaches that function, as seen especially when it is applied to natural phenomena as it will
certainly rain tonight . There is also an increasing tendency to use ( wi )ll
in the first person instead of shall, as in I'm afraid I'll die soon (especially
14

Fries, "The .Expression of the Future," L a11g11age, Vol. Ill, No. 2, June 1927 .

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

59

in Sc. and Amr.) which makes will even more the common auxilliary of
the future .
(3) Thought, intention . 0 . N. mun. This cannot easily be kept apart
from volition.
(4) Obligation. This is the original meaning of 0 . E. sceal, now shall.
In English the meaning of obligation is restricted to the first person
in assertions and to the second person in questions, although in some
classes of subordinate clauses it is used in all three persons.
(5) Motion. Verbs meaning "go" and "come" .are frequently used to
indicate futurity. E. I am going to write .
(6) Possibility." E. May frequently denotes a somewhat vague futurity : this may end in disaster.15
d) John Fell, in his Essay Towards an English Grammar, 1784, apparently came closer than anybody in either the elghteenth or nineteenth
centuries to describing the true status of shall and will : " Will, as an auxilliary term, is a mere sign of futurity, set before the infinitive mode ...
shall, even as an auxilliary sign always denotes something more than mere
futurity, and constantly implies either obligation, possibility, contingency,
or something conditional, and very often several of these together."16

Shall and W ill in questions.
Associated with the rules for shall and will in declarative sentences of future time there are parallel rules for the use of these
words in questions. In his study of the use of shall and will in
dramatic literature, Professor Fries finds the actual usage of these
auxilliaries not entirely consistent with the traditional rules. He
says of shall and will in questions:
From these figures two conclusions seem evident :
1. The usual statement that will is impossible in questions of the first person is inaccurate, although it is true that will is seldom used in this situation. About three per cent of the instances in the first person appear
with will . ...
2. The common statement regarding second person questions, for example that in the New English Dictionary, that in the second person "in
categorical questions" shall is "normal" is, according to these figures, plainly
inadequate. Of the 512 questions in the second person but 7 or 1.3 per
cent use shall; all the rest employ will. Certainly Shall yoit? with its 7
cases out of 512 second person questions is no more "normal" than Will I?
having 12 instances out of a total of 407 first person questions . .. -.
One ought also to add here that there are a number of examples of
Will you? in which the context seems to exclude from the word will the
idea of "wish" or "resolve."17
i :-;

16

Jespersen, Philoso pky of Grammar, pp. 160, 161.
Leonard , S. A., Doctrine of C orrectness , pp. 73 , 74 .

Frie., "The Periphrastic Future with Shall and Will in Modern English ," P.kf.L .A.,
Vol. XL, No. 2, pp. 1001-1003.
17

60

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

With this convincing evidence from Professor Fries' study it
seems reasonable to expect the schoolbook rules for shall and will
in questions to be greatly modified, perhaps to read, "In asking a
question, shall is more generally used in the first person, although
will is possible; in the second and third persons will is predominant.
More evidence as to the preponderance of will over shall in
everyday usage is furnished by a recent bulletin of the Bell Telephone System entitled The Words and Sounds of T elephone C011versations. In 79,390 spoken words, taken from conversations between two men, two women, or man and woman, a total of 1,900
conversations, the word will as an auxilliary was used 1,305 times
in 402 conversations, while the word shall as an auxilliary was
used but 6 times in 6 conversations. 18 That shall is exceedingly
rare in common conversation seems established. That its use in
literature, at least in dramatic literature, is not as common as is
ordinarily supposed has been shown by Professor Fries. Upon
what grounds, then, does a textbook author write, "Don't allow
will to crowd shall out of your vocabulary" ?19
Should and Would.
The textbooks agree with scarcely a dissenting voice that the
rules applying to shall and will apply equally to should and would.
· Counting the two-book series as one work, all but two of the texts
examined assert that should ~nd would are governed by the same
rules as shall and will. The two books failing to include this rule
simply omit reference to should and would.
The rules for should and would imply therefore that in simple
declarative statements should is invariably used with the first person, and would with the second and third persons. In questions
also, should is required in the first person, and either should or
would in the second and third persons, depending upon the form
expected in reply.

In addition to the auxilliary uses of should there are special
modal uses not applicable to shall. These are, ( 1) "In a conditional clause, the auxilliary is should for all persons except to
indicate definite volition on the part of the subject of the clause."
(2) "Should is frequently used like ought to express moral obligation."20
18

French, Carter, and Koenig, The Words and Sounds of Telephone Conversation.r,
Bell Telephone System, Monograph B.---491, June, 1930.
19
French, 1924, p. 346.
20 Thomas, Manchester, and Scott, p. 550.

61

From this variety of uses, if the rules truly record the facts of
usage, one expects to find the word should quite th~ equal of
would with reference to frequency. Such, however, ts not the
case. The Bell Telephone System study reveals the facts that in
a total of 1 900 conversations the word would occurs 379 times
in 207 conv~rsations (plus wouldn't 97 times in 79 conversations)
while should was found but 50 times in 43 conversations.21 It
is only fair to assume from such fig ures that in ordinary colloquial
usage would has assumed many of the functions of should, although not to the extent that will has replaced shall.
The use of shall and will as future auxilliaries, and to a lesser
extent the use of should and would, have long engaged the attention of textbook writers. Much space has been devoted to a discussion of their 'correct' use and many pages of exercises follow the
discussions. In view of the evidence now available concerning
these forms both from the standpoint of their history and their
contemporary usage it seems advisable for textbooks in the elementary and junior high school levels to follow the example of
Messrs. Kirby and Carpenter 22 and omit any discussion of 'correct' usage for shall, will, should, or would. Textbooks designed
for the senior high school and college should either omit all reference to 'correctness' or else give the whole story: traditions, rules,
facts of past usage, and facts of present usage. Only by so doing
can they pretend to any approximation to current usage.
Subjunctive Mood.
.
.
The disappearance of the distinctive forms of the subiunct1ve
from modern English writing and speech is by no means a recent
<:)iscovery. Priestly writes in 1769, "Grammatical as this conju~c­
tive (subjunctive) form of verbs is said to be, by all wl~o wnte
upon the subject, it must, we think, be acknowledged, that 1t sometimes gives the appearance of stiffness, and harshness. to ~ sentence."28 Webster in 1798 says, " .. . by the construction m our
language, no subjunctive mode is necessary-in mos~ ~ases it is
improper-and what is the strongest of all arguments, it is not used
in the spoken language, which is the only true foundation ·of gramn1ar."24
"Op. cit., pp.

14, 15.

.

Kirby and Carpenter , Book Eight, p. 312.
"Quoted from Leonard, S. A., Do ctrine of Correctness, p.
"Ibid., p. 205.
22

203 .

63

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

Of our own time, Professor Krapp writes in 1909, "The most
important contemporary change is that which is affecting the subjunctive mood. Practically, the only construction in Modern
English in which the subjunctive is in living, natural, use, is in the
condition contrary to fact .. . . It seems likely, therefore, with
the continuance of the present tendencies, that the subjunctive as
a distinctive inflectional form will disappear, except, perhaps, in
the one construction noted. Even here, however, the indicative
form is used in a surprisingly large number of instances in good
modern authors."25
In similar vein is the statement of a modern educator: "The
colloquial use of ·i f he was is not at all uncommon among even the
masters of language, and its use in the literature of great writers
is so frequently seen that no one is justified in calling its use 'bad
grarmnar.' " 26

This latter statement is probably true as far as the use of the
subjunctive in America is concerned, but not in the sense that the
writer intended. Never very firmly established (Webster said:
It is not used in the spoken la11guage) despite the efforts of a
century of schoolmasters, the distinctive subjunctive forms are
today a literary grace by no means universally employed. The
"unwise" writers who incur Mr. Setzler's ire include nearly all the
masters of English literature, observant grammarians from the
eighteenth century, and such contemporary linguists as Otto
Jespersen, H. C. Wyld, George Curme, and G. P. Krapp. His
."careless or uninformed" speakers include Franklin K. Lane,
Henry Cabot Lodge, Theodore Roosevelt, and Calvin Coolidge, to
mention only a few whose actual usage has been studied. 29
On the whole contemporary textbooks are inclined toward a
liberal view of the subjunctive uses. What they fail to make clear
is the fact that except for the use of were in conditions contrary
to fact, all other uses of the subjunctive are extremely literary in
tone and sometimes almost archaic.

62

Many teachers, particularly instructors in college composition,
insist that the subjunctive form in the conditional sentence contrary to fact is the only permissible one. Their contention is vigorously worded in an article appearing in the Anglo-Saxon. This
writer says, "It may not be out of place to call attention . . . to the
unwise practice of certain well-educated writers and speakers who
make a habit of using the indicative instead of the subjunctive in
the 'if' clause of a conditional sentence contrary to fact ('unreal
condition'); in saying 'If he was here, we would now begin the
lesson' instead of, 'If he were here, we would now begin the lesson'. Some of these writers even go so far as to assert that the
former sentence is equally correct and just as good English as the
latter. But such a claim is without adeqtiate basis. The use of
'was' in the first sentence can make claim justly to only that inferior type of 'correctness' which an illogical and inexact expression sometimes obtains through the frequency of its use by careless or uninformed writers and speakers." 2 7
This is the extreme position, which the writer sums up by saying, "The subjunctive mood, so far from being on the verge of
disappearance, functions today with as much force and vitality as
it ever did in any previous period of English history." 2 8
"Krapp, Modern English , pp. 289, 290.
26
Cross, Fundamentals in English , p. 328.
27
Setzler, "Is the Subjunctive Disappcaring?JJ Anglo-Sa:ron, Nov. 1927, p. 4.
28 Loe. cit .

The most common subjunctive forms are found in the use of were for was
in such expressions as If I were, If you we.-e, If lie were, etc. and in the
use of a third person singular without the ending s; as, God forbid I
Long live the king / 30

The last two uses from the statement above-God forbid! Lo11g
lii·e the king !-are not truly subjunctive forms in modern English,
but are really survivals of an ancient pattern now entirely lost
from the language. Professor Jespersen points out the absurdity
of saying, "Soon come the train," to express a wish . " . . . the
sentence 'Long live the king' must therefore be analyzed as consisting of a formular 'Long live' which is living though the type
is dead, + a subject which is variable."B 1
Concerning the subjunctive mood in general, Jespersen says,
"As a matter of fact , the history of English and Danish shows
how the once flourishing subjunctive has withered more and more,
until it now can be compared with those rudimentary organs whose
use is problematic or very subordinate indeed."3 2
Bevier. " American Use of the Subjuncti ve,' ' Am erican Speech, Vol. VI, p. 207
"Pearson and Kirchwfy, 1928 , Pl" 493 , 494 .
Jespersen, Philoso(>lry of Grammar, p. 20.
· "Ibid., p. 49.
29

"1

64

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
. . . in English in more than 99 .per cent of the cases, .. . the old preterit
subjunctive is identical with the indicative, except in the singular of the
one verb be, where was and were are still distinct. It is easy to understand,
therefore, that the instinctive feeling for the difference between these two
forms cannot be vivid enough to prevent the use of was where were would
have been required some centuries ago. Since about 1700 was has been
increasingly frequent in these positions .. . . In literary language there
has recently been a reaction in favor of were, which is preferred by most
teachers; but in colloquial speech were is comparatively rare, except in the
phrase "If I were you," and it is worth remarking that was is decidedly
more emphatic than were, and thus may be said to mark the impossibility
better than the old subjunctive form.as

An American observer notes "Five of the greatest grammarians and about fifty authors from Baxter to the present show
that was in the unreal condition and in the clause of 'wishing' is
making inroads upon the territory of were. Whether we like it or
not, such are the facts."34
It seems in accord with the facts to conclude that the subjunctive forms of verbs other than the verb to be constitute extremely
formal literary usage verging on the archaic. With regard to the
verb to be it may be concluded that the present tense "if he be"
is a highly literary form , commonly supplanted by "If he is." In
the past tense the form "If he were" is far more common in
writing and cultivated speech although "If he was" is to all intents an equivalent form which may be considered standard
English. The · use of the subjunctive today becomes, therefore,
more largely a question of taste than of "correctness."
THE ADVERB

The only question of grammatical form arising in connection
with the modern English adverb is that of the adverbs formed
without -ly as hard, loud, soft, fast, slow, sometimes called the
"flat" adverbs. That some of these words are properly adverbs is
not denied by any of the textbooks examined, but they disagree
materially as to which ones of the list may be so accepted. Only
one attempts any explanation of the reason for these forms , as
follows: "A few (adverbs) formed by dropping an Old English
inflectional -e have no ending: soon, fast."3 5
83 Jbid., pp. 266, 267 .
"Hall , J. Lesslie. English Usage , pp. 312, 313.
" French, 1924, p. 288.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

65

The determination of whether or not land, soft, fast, slow,
are adverbs in a particular sentence is a question of syntax, but
when one or more are categorically denied adverbial use the problem belongs properly to grammar. The words loud, and slow are
specifically excepted from the lists of adverbs by three authors,
and form, therefore, the examples for this discussion.
The following example of incorrect grammar is cited by one
author. "The bell, ringing loud, was heard by alJ."3 6 One cannot
fail to note with interest that two of the writers cited just above
include loud in their lists of adverbs, one in fact using it as the
only example. The word slow, on the other hand, receives only
silence or objection, no author defending it, although it is the.
most commonly used of these adverbs. The advent of the automobile, necessitating the caution "drive slow," has placed this
usage before the eyes of everyone. It is discouraging to note that
the most recent of the textbooks used in this analysis devotes the
most space to destroying slow as an adverb, giving half a page to
a graphic r~presentation of this supposed fault. It is this sort of
wholesale denial of' current usage backed up by the history of the
word and the authority of the New English Dictio11ary that destroys the value of textbooks as guides to contemporary speech.
Another author resorts to a doubtful argument to distinguish
between the adjective and adverb. In the sentence, "He rolled the
cigarette tight," the word tight is an adjective because "The state
of the cigarette when rolled .w as that of tightness." 8 7 But in the
command "Hold on tight!" one suspects that if the holder were
"tight," he might fail to obey the command. This illustration is
cited not so much to defend the use of tight as an adverb as to
point out the speciousness of the argument.
Returning now to the main question, what rule, if any, governs the choice of the alternative adverb forms loud, loudly, soft,
softly, slow, slowly, and the 1 est? The problem is by no means
a recent one, as is shown by the fact that Dr. Samuel Johnson
"lists words like slow as adj ectives only," 38 in direct defiance 'of
the contrary usage of Milton and others. The real solution is
suggested by Leonard in his canons for the determination of usage.
"Euphony seems rarely to have been appealed to for resolution of
" McFadden and Ferguson , p . 308.
" Raymond, p. 19 7.
"'Leonard. S. A., Doctrine of Ci ·ectness, p. 70.

66

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

problems like the use of slow or slowly, feel bad or badly, and the
"30
like, which probably are actua11 y settl ed to fi t sen t ence ca d ence.
For textbook purposes the matter might be stated thus: Some
adverbs have two forms, one identical with the adjective of similar
meaning, as loud, soft, qufrk, slmv, and the other formed with -ly,
as loudly, softly, quickly, slowly. Either form is grammatically
correct, but the sound of the adverb in the sentence determines to
some extent which form to select. Hence in imperative sentences,
"Come quick," "Drive slow," and "Speak soft," the shorter form
is quite generally used; in declarative sentences, "We walked
slowly," "They spoke softly," the longer form is more frequently
used. In any type of sentence the sound of the adverb in the
sentence is the determining factor.
This section cannot better conclude than with a line from a
poem of Arthur Hugh Clough, who says,
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly.

40

What could more clearly exhibit the parallel forms of the adverb,
side by side in a parallel construction, the position of both forms
being determined solely by euphony!
THE

NouN

The grammar of the English noun has become so simple through
the inflectional losses of the ages that little remains to cause
difficulty or difference. The plural forms of a few foreign or uncommon words, the question of popular, or "ungrammatical"
gender, and the use of some possessive forms constitute the items
for consideration in this section.
Number.
How are the plural forms of foreign nouns made? Must they
follow the grammar of their native languages or may they be
naturalized into English? The answers to these questions once
provided the grammar-books with several pages of materials. The
attitude of the past quarter century as revealed by the textbooks
examined for this study, shows a decidedly liberal attitude toward
the naturalization of commonly used foreign words.
""Op . cit., p. 155 .
"Clough, Poems, 1869, Vol. II, p. 497 .

67

In this instance the statements of the grammarians concur with
facts .of current usage. The plural form of a foreign word
is detenmned solely by its use in English. Hence memorandums
ct~rriculttms, gemtses, and incle.-.es may exist peaceably side by sid~
with 1n.emoranda., curricula, genera, and indices. If other foreign
words become as much "at home" in our language as these, they
too may have English plurals. But if the foreign plural of a
popular foreign word also becomes popular, as in the case of
a1mn ntts, al1111ini, datm·n, data , the foreign plural is established,
logic and consistency notwithstanding.
Th.e word data is of peculiar interest because it is apparently
beco~mng popularized with a new use and meaning. Originally a
foreign plural of a foreign noun, it is rapidly changing into a
collective noun in the singular number, so that the expression
"This data is' 1 instead of " These data are" is by no means uncommon. The word thus used means informatio11, collection of
facts, or results of investigation. If such a word is i1eecled, and it
seems to be so needed, no one can object to a singular "data" who
regularly uses the singular "news" from a former plural "news,"
or a singular "links" (a golf links) from a former plural "links."
Are the words matheniatics, physics, poJ.it-ics, athletics singular
or plural? Those textbook writers who treat of the matter at all
favor the singular.
~he

a) Some nouns. plural in form are now generally used as singulars; as,economics, physics, mathematics, politics.41
b) Some nouns have no plural form. This is true of measles, news,
mathematics. Consult the dictionary for athletics, and politics.42

A comparison of the rule for the number of the word n1athenia.tics in references (a) and (b) above reveals the paradox that
mathematics is a plural used as a singular, and it is also a singular
that has no plural. It is. small wonder that school children are
perplexed by matters in which the authorities placed before them
differ so widely.
Webster's Collegiate Dictio11ary, Edition of 1929, says ~ f
these words: "When denoting a sci entific treati se, or its subj ect
matter, forms in -ics are construed in the singular; as, mathematics, physics ; but those denoting matters of practice, as gymnastics,
tactics, are oftener construed as plurals."
41

H'yde. p. 3 7.

42

Kimball, Book Two, 1911 , p. 53.

68

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

The · foregoing definition fails to afford much help in the case
of politics which may be considered either a scientific treatise
and its subject matter or a matter of practice. As a matter of
practice the word is regularly used in the plural, though there is
equal authority for its use in the singular. J. Lesslie Hall quotes
Emerson: "The politics are base," and Chesterton: "Politics in
its historic aspect would seem to have had a great fascination for
him, etc." Hall sums up the discussion of the words in -ics as
follows: "The tendency in words in -ics is to take the singular
regimen; such has been the case with mathe-matics, ethics, physics,
optics; but athletfrs and politics seem to prefer the plural. An impartial study of politics from Queen Anne's day to the present
shows that it is prevailing plural, plural in more than three-fourths
of the passages in which it is found. Further reading, however,
48
might change the figures to some extent."
Gender.
The following description of English gender ·is common to
the texts treating of the subject. "The distinction between words
to denote sex is called gender. A noun that denotes a male is of
the masculine gender; a noun that denotes a female is of the
feminine gender; a noun that may denote either a male or a
female is of the common gender; a noun that denotes a thing
44
neither male nor female is of the neuter gender."
These rules are true enough as far as they go, but they fail to
recognize a popular or "ungrammatical" use of gender which is
so common as to be part of the idiom of almost every speaker of
English. This phenomenon is the regular use of "she" or "her"
to refer to inanimate objects. A few examples serve to recall how
common the usage is.
1. Automobile owner working on his car:

"I've got her going! "
2. "Here she comes!" speaking of a train or ship.
J. "She's a grand old country," speaking of a nation or political division .

Svartengren has made a study of this phenomenon in English,
saying, "The use of the feminine for inanimate objects is nativemasculine in character-and quite widespread. The she seems to
be regularly used with three classes of nouns:
"Hall. J. Lesslie, E11glislr Usage , pp. 199·202.
"Hyde, Book Two, p. 42.

69

I. Concrete things made or worked upon by man.
II. Actions, abstract ideas.
III. Nature, and natural objects not worked upon by man.4"
Professor Curme also notes that "We are inclined to make chiirch
univers~ty, state, and especially ship feminine. With a good deai
of pers1stency we say of a ship: 'She behaves well, she minds her
rud~e:, she swi1~1S like a duck. .. .' "4G While this use of the
femmme g~nder is no~ a point to be labored, it scarcely seems right
to n~glect 1t utterly 111 all textbooks describing the ·grammar of
Engl'.sh. Somewhere in the sections on gender there should be
mention of so widespread and comm.on a use of the feminine
forms.
Ti/le Possessive Case.
'_'Names of in~ni.mate obj~cts should rarely be put in the possessive .case, fo~ 1t 1s confusmg to think of inanimate objects as
poss.essmg-havmg ownership in-anything. Instead of the pos.
sessive forms, make use of a phrase, generally with of.''47
. The r.ule for ~h~ use ~f the noun in the possessive case, limiting
its fun~t10n .to hvmg thmgs in prose, and personified objects m
ve:se, is quite commonly found in the school grammars. It is
~u1te clearly stated in the grammar of Kittredge and Farley where
it appears thu:, "In older English, and in poetry, the possessive
case of nouns 1s freely used, but in modern prose it is rare unless
the possessor is a living being."48
It goes without saying that the gentive in s is the older form in
English. In the Beowulf we find I-Jares hyrste (Hair's· ornamen.ts); non ~aeges (day's noon); heofenes hauor (heaven's receptlcle); and 111 the Voyages of Othere and Wulfstan the phrase
i'faes landes sceawunge (for the land's spying out) ; and aelces
geoeodes man ( ea~h tribe's man). From Chaucer come also my
hertes lady, lyves hght, worldes rfrhesse and many others.
In more recent times it is true that the of construction has
large!~ replaced the older s genitive, but not to the point of utter
exclusion. There seems to be no justification either in the history
of th.e form or in current usage for the rule that "the possess'ive
case is properly used only with names of living beings," or for the
:: SCvartengr en, "Feminine Gender in Anglo·American,' ' Atnerica.n Speech Vol III p 83
urme, 5 yntax, p. 556.
•
·
' ·
..
" Raymond, p, 192 ,
43

Kittredge and Farley, Advanced E'1glisft Gramm ar, p. 45.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

70

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

series of exercises in grammar books in which such useful forms
"the house's roof " "the clock's hands," "the room's length" are
as
'
.I d
offered for correction. As a matter of fact certain estabhs 1e pat' I engtI1, ". " a st o~e 's
terns such as "a hair's breadth," "an arms
throw" cannot be transposed to the of construction without domg
violence to the meaning, since the phrases "the breadth of . a
hair," "the length of an arm," and "the throw of a stone" will
not serve in the place of the possessive constructi~n~.
Hall presents a table showing 700 passages contamm~. the possessive used with things without life, from 87 authont1es from
John Mandeville to H . W. Mabie. Comme~ting .on this table, he
says, "It would be impossible to exha~tst this ~ubject; t~e num?er
of passages could be increased indefimtely. It 1s almost 1111~Joss1b~e
to read any good book by a reputable writer withou~ seemg this
interdicted locution at frequent intervals; the rule 1s not based
upon the literature." 49
.
With such overwhelming evidence from the literature of the
past, together with the corroborative examples in the ~urrent
pei:iodicals of the better sort, .it seems advisabl: to subst1.tute. a
more moderate statement concerning the possessive case with manimate objects than that which now obtains in the gr~mmars'. It
might be worded: "Possession is indicated in two ways m English:
( 1) by the use of the possessive case, and ( 2) by the us~ of the of
phrase. The possessive case is more ge.nerally. used with proper
nouns and the names of living or persomfied objects, thou~h there
are many examples in standard literature of the po~sess1ve case
used with inanimate objects. The of phrase, however, IS more commonly used with inanimate objects to show possession. In cases of
doubt select the form most consistent with euphony."
THE PRONOUN

!--me.
There was a time in the history of the English language when
an honest grammarian would have been compelled
report,
concerning pronoun usage, a social distinction. becommg more
and more felt in the use of the second person smgular pronouns.

t?

·
·h
•• H~ll , J. Less!•J;· J•g~''

.u'5%:';e1 P%~d 204·206
So1t says

Two exampl es from current reading
"They closed it (the door) carefully,

come to mind. Warw1,c
ee~mg m
,, From a magazine comes, "A . .. conference of
as though the room .s empt iness . · ·
.
d
. ,,
three pint• of Bourbon and one half box of csgar'• uration.

71

The hypothetical grammarian would have written, "Thou dost
well"--tommon or uncultivated usage ; " you do well"--cultivated,
polite usage. Since that time the more formal usage has prevailed
until the original second person singular has been relegated to the
language of poetry, religion, and secret societies. As a result "you
do well," addressed to one person, is "bad" granunar but good
usage; "thou dost well" is good grammar but obsolete usage.
To what extent, then, can the appeal to correct grammar be
urged against the increasingly common usage "It is me"? Custom,
which made you a singular pronoun in correct usage, is just as
surely establishing the combination it is me, grammar and logic.
notwithstanding. The textbooks, however, recognize neither the
process nor the result.
The failure of the school texts to make son1e allowance for
common usage is the more surprising in view of the long history of
it is nie and the quantities of print that it has evoked in attack
and defence. Priestly writing in 1762, says, "All our grammarians
say, that the nominative case of pronouns ought to fol(9w the
verb substantive (is, and the like) as well as precede it; yet many
familiar forms of speech, and the example of some of our best
writers, would lead us to make a contrary rule; or, at least, would
leave us at liberty to adopt which we liked best: Are these the
houses? Y es, they are them. Who is the1·e ? It is me. It is him.
It is not me yoit are in love with. Addison. It cannot be me. Swift.
To thaJ which 011ce was thee. Prior. There is bu.t 011e man that she
ca11 have, and that is me. Clarissa.":;o
Professor Krapp, in his "Guide" conveys a tone of doubt and
uncertainty regarding the position of it is me. After listing some
examples he says, "Nevertheless the preponderance of theoretical
opinion is not on the side either of me, or of her, hvm, etc., as
nominatives . . . . By the historical rules of grammar such constructions are incorrect. But this test in itself is not decisive, for
many uses now in good standing are historically incorrect. The
question is whether these particular uses have established themselves as correct beyond debate. The answer to this question must
obviously be in the negative . . . . "5 1
The Leonard-Moffett study, however, reveals a far more
widespread acceptance of it is me than Professor Krapp's article
oo Quoted from Leonard, S. A. , Doctrine of Correctness, p. 186 .
"Krapp, Com prehemive Guide lo Good English , p. 382.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS
72

73

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

would indicate. The linguists rated at 2.1 on a scale of 4 points, in
which point 2 represents "cultivated informal English." It must
be added, though, that other groups of judges were more conservative, as the following table shows:
On a scale of 4 points in which 1 represents "Literary or formal English" and
"Uncultivated English," the average rating of it is me for
was 3.2
23 Authors
3.2
24 Editors
24 Business men
68 Members of the M.L.A.
50 Members of the English Council
12 Teachers of Speech

3.6
2.4
2.9

2.5

Here, as in many other instances, the students of language were
more liberal in accepting the usage than were other educated
groups 52
Commenting upon the findings of this study, an editorial in the
Evening Standard (London) says:
There are two ways of qefending it (it is me ). One is to point out that
"me" here is not the accusative "me," but the equivalent, and probably
a survival, of the French "moi." Just as the French do not say "C'est je"
or in answer to a question, simply "Je I" so we-unless we are ultra-par'
·
"II"
ticular--do
not say "it's I" or simply
. . We say "'t'
1 s me, " or "Met"
and we do it for the same reasons and the same justification.
The other way of defending it is to remark that language preceded
grammarians, and still takes precedence of them. The business of the
giammarian is to observe, perhaps to explain, accomplished facts. But the
facts themselves are outside his power . . . . Either, or both, of these
defences may be right. The history of linguistics shows that languages will
grow in spite of all attempts to restrain them . What seems to be the
solecism· of today is the accepted idiom of tomorrow .53

Havelock Ellis joins forces with the defenders of it is me.
But there are other points at which some, even good critics (that lets
you out!) may be tempted to accept the commendati~n ~f the literary
grammarians. It is sufficient to mention one: the nommat1ve use of the
pronoun "Me." Yet surely, anyone who considers social practice as w~ll as
psychological necessity should not fail to see that we must recognize a
double use of "me" in English. The French, who in such matters seem to
have possessec,1 a finer social and psychological tact, have realized that "ie_"
cannot be the sole nominative of the first person and have supplemented it
by "moi" ("mi" from "mihi"). The Frenchman, when asked who is there,
'"Leonard-Moffett. "Levels in English Usage," English Journal , J\fay 1927 , p. 353.
" E veNing Standard, London , October 8, 1927 .

does not reply "Je !" but the would-be purist in English is supposed to ·be
reduced to replying "I!" Royal Cleopatra asks the Messenger: "Is she as
tall as me?" The would-be purist no doubt transmutes this as he reads into
"Is she as tall as I?" We need not envy him.5•

Mr. Ellis strikes at the heart of the controversy 111 his use
of the terms "social practice" and "psychological necessity.''
These are the bases of correct usage, though perhaps in reverse
order . . "Psychological necessity" establishes a "social practice" in
language, which will triumph over logic and the laws of grammar
despite the howls of purists and the rods of schoolmasters. Many
such "psychological necessities" are now "correct" grammar;
many more will be as their need is felt.
The honest textbook writer of the future must face the facts.
He must bow to social custom. In his discussion of the first person singular pronoun after the verb to be he must say: "In formal
literary, and solemn style the pronoun I is used; in cultivated
colloquial usage custom has also establi·s hed the pronoun me. The
tone and purpose of the speech or writing must in all cases determine the choice of the pronoun."

It ·is him, her.
Although extremely common in the less cultivated levels of
.current English, and occurring sporadically in standard literature,
(as in "somebody leaner and darker than him" in Lord Dunsany's.
The Blessing of Pan, Putnam, 1928), the pronouns hini and her
in nominative constructions have far less standing and support
than does me in similar constructions. This fact is an interesting
illustration of the validating force of custom. Logically, if it is i-ne
is accepted, it is hi111i or her must be similarly accepted, as they are
parallel constructions. But custom, not logic, rules, discriminating
clearly between the acceptable it is me and the excluded it is her,
him. It is possible, too, that the customary telephone reply, "This
is he (she) speaking," has had an influence in preserving the nominative forms.
The New English Dictionary acknowledges this usage historically as follows: "him. For the nominative especially after
than, as and in predicate after be. Common in colloquial language
from the end of the 16th century. Dialectically the use of him for
he extends to all constructions in which Frei1ch uses lui for il. It
"Ellis, Havelock; The Dance of Life, Chapter IV.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXT BOOKS

has been used thus by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Van Brugh, J ohnson, Tucker, and Burke, to name only a few."
The judges of the Leonard-Moffett study found the usage "T
am older than him" far less acceptable than "it is me." The latter
usage was ranked 25th in a list of 102 items· arranged in order to
acceptability, while "I am older than him!' was ranked 87th.
Professor Krapp says of the nominative uses of her, him,
them: "Though widely current, these uses do not have the sanction of authority, and are usually designated as incorrect by
granunarians and other critics of speech . . . . It is possible that
in time general use will make these constructions so customary
that they will be accepted as correct, but that time has not yet
arrived." 55
The foregoing statement summarizes the uses of her, him, them
adequately. These forms are common, but not in written English
nor cultivated speech. The chief fact to stress is that they do not
have the standing of "it is me," and that the establishment of the
latter in current acceptable English does not constitute support for
them in any way. Each usage must be judged on its own merits.

persons unless they make a heroic and conscious effort invariably
say 'Who is it for?' and 'Who did you see?' . . . On the contrary
no cultivated person says 'A 111a11 whv I saw' ; a1111u:;L invariably
one says 'a man I saw,' or less often , 'a 111;m that I saw.' " "' Tn
the eighteenth century the use of who for whoui was condemned
by Lowth, Buchanan, Homsey, and Bingham, but was defended
by Webster and Priestly."8 The American grammarian, \Vebster,
strangely enough calls on analogy with Latin grammar for his
defence, although he usually avoided classical analogy in his
treatment of usage. He says

74

Who and Whom.
Such sentences as "Who did they punish?", " Who did you give
it to?" , "Who are you going to invite?", are quite generally condemned in current textbooks as examples of bad grammar and
incorrect usage. Such wholesale condemnation is by no means
representative of current usage, as any careful observer of cultivated speech and informal writing can readily testify. In the initial position in questions who is far more prevalent than whom
even though it may be grammatically the object of a following
verb or preposition. On the contrary when the pronoun immediately follows the verb or preposition cultivated usage requires the
objective form as in "For whom was it sent?" , "You saw whom?".
The use of the nominative in the initial position seems to be the
result of certain inherent language habits, one of which is the
feeling for a nominative form at the beginning of a sentence and
another the reluctance to make a grammatical decision before the
context requires it. 5 6 One observer reports: ". . . all cultivated
" Krapp , Comprehensive Guidf. to Good English , p . 298.
.
"'This latter habit is interestingly revealed in The Blernng OJ Pan by Lord Dunsany.
The speaker makes an inquiry , HWho? " sa id the Vicar. "Whom do you mean? " The repetition of the interrogative pronoun gives time for a grammatical decision-to use the objective form. The first is spontaneous and is grammatically undecided , or nominative.

75

· · · "whom did you speak to?" was never used in speaking, as I can find,
and '.f so, is hardly English at all. There is no doubt, in my mind, that the
Enghsh who and the Latin qui are the same word with mere variations of
dialect. Who in the Gothic and Teutonic, has always answered to the nominative qui; and dative mi which was pronoum:ed like qui, and the ablative quo.
. . . So that Who did he speak to? Who did you go with? were probably as
~o~d English, in ancient times, as cui dixit? Cum quo ivisti? in Latin. Nay,
it is more than probable that who was once wholly used in asking questions,
even in the objective case; who did he marry? until some Latin student began
to suspect it bad English, because not agreeable to the Latin rules. At any
rate, w hom do you speak to? is a corruption and all the grammars that can
be found will not extend the use of the phrase beyond the walls of a college.u9

The modern linguist is scarcely prepared to agree with Webster
that the dative use of whom is a corruption, nor to defend wholeheartedly · his etymology, sound though it is in part, but his final
statement that a usage based upon logic or analogy with Latin
grammar "will not extend the use of a phrase beyond the walls of
a college" commands respect as the observation of a genuine student of language with an objective viewpoint remarkable in his
day. As a matter of fact, who has been used as an objective form
throughout the history of English. The New English Dictimrary
says, "Comnron in colloquial use as the object of a verb, or of a
preposition foll owing at the encl of a clause," and lists examples
from Cranmer to Hardy.
The anxiety of textbook writers to correct the faulty who leads
occasionally to absurdities. Of such a character is the following,
"In questions, w hom comes at the beginning of the sentence, where
" 1 Leonard, S.
A., "Educa tional Quack ery," Saturday Review of Literature, 5 :806,
March 23, 19 29.
58 'Leonard , S. A. , Doctr.;ne of Correctness
p. 263 .
· " Ibid., pp. 51 , 52.
'

76

!..

r"

''

'I
,.
,.

,.

77

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

we ordinarily find the subject."60 There is no limiting or modifying statement, leading the student naturally to the assumption
that every question employing the interrogative pronoun must
begin with whom. He therefore says, or. writes, in good faith
"Whom are you?" and "Whom did you think I was?"
The discussion thus far has dealt with who and whom as interrogative pronouns. As relative pronouns they give rise to several interesting constructions. The use of who as a relative pronoun in an objective construction is far less common in cultivated
speech and writing, chiefly because, as Professor Leonard points
out (see footnote 57) in freer use the pronoun tends to be omitted
entirely, as in "That is the man I saw," or the uninflected that is
substituted, as in "Garrick was the actor that I referred to."
Nevertheless, the use of who as an objective relative is by no
means rare. A recent letter from the editorial rooms of the Rand
McN ally and Company, publishers, contains the sentence, "This
copy editor, however, is no pedant but an up-to-date broad-minded
college woman who we can usually trust to go ahead and prepare
a manuscript without special supervision." Such a sentence in a
letter from a mercantile firm would have small significance, but
from an editor in the employ of a prominent publishing house (a
person professionally "language-minded") it reveals the fact that
even to a professional writer who in this sentence awoke no
grammatical consciousness, but was natural and spontaneous;
The case of the relative pronoun in such sentences as "There
is a man who I know will be faithful," is sometimes disputed.
Who is ordinarily parsed as the subject of the verb will be the
clause I know being considered parenthetical. Some writers, perhaps influenced by the stress on the objective whoni in the school
room, use whom in such a sentence, ·making it objective of the
verb know. An example occurs in Richard Haliburton's Royal
Road to Romance, p. 152, "men . . . whom I knew would excommunicate their erstwhile shipmates. . . ." While such usages
do occur, they are by no means common enough to challenge seriously the customary nominative who.
Except in strictly formal writing the compounds whoever and
whosoever are in current usage quite generally employed as nominative and objective forms. The reason lies in the grammatical

uncertainty connected with the usual syntax of these forms, that
of object of a preceding verb or preposition, and subject of a
succeeding verb. This sentence from Boswell's L ife of Johnson
illustrates the point very well, !' . • . you shall meet whoever comes,
for me." Is whoever in this sentence object of the verb meet or
subject of the verb comes? Of course it is in a sense both, but
Boswell m~doubtedly felt the subject relation to be the stronger
and wrote it so. The nominative gains further support when it -is
realized that the object of meet is really an objective him, which is
omitted for convenience but may be readily reinstated, as in, "You
shall meet him, whoever comes," or "I shall punish him,· whoever
speaks." When a preposition immediately precedes, the dilemma
is stronger. "This is addressed to whoever is concerned." Here
again the phrase whoever is concerned is felt to be the entire object of the preposition rather than whoever alone, and is consequently made nominative rather than objective. On the other
hand, the objective form is sometimes employed in a similar construction, thus: " . . . admired by whomsoever ~hall happen ·upon
these lines." (From Anthology of Pure Poetry by George Moore,
p. 7.) As a result of these doubtful constructions, the compound
relative pronouns tend to be used nominatively even when the
grammar is clear, as in "I will go with whoever I like," simply
because in nearly all constructions·even with a preposition whoever
is used nominatively. The schoolbooks are quite right in distinguishing the case forms for the compoi.md relative pronouns for
strictly literary usage, but to insist that these literary and formal
distinctions be made in informal writing and speech as necessary
'correctness' is to do violence to the readily observed facts of current usage. It has been shown, moreover, that even in literary
usage the forms are not indisputable;

'°Kirby and Carpenter, Book Eight, p. 32.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

CHAPTER V
PRESCRIPTIVE SYNTAX
It is the purpose of this chapter to demonstrate that the rules
of the ordinary school textbooks with regard to syntactical problems are often at variance with the usage of standard literature or
the customs of polite society. That these rules are frequently of
long standing and carry the weight of some authority is not disputed; it is rather the contention of this chapter that they are
"prescriptive" in the sense that they represent what their authors
feel should be, in contradiction to what actually is in literary and
current usage. As is the case in the preceding chapter on Pre_scriptive Granunar, no attempt is made to present a complete
survey of English syntax, but instead to select . from the textbooks certain clear and concrete issues unequivocally presented by
their authors which may be dealt with objectively. It follows,
therefore, that the items dealt with in this chapter cannot be
grouped very conveniently into categories except that different
problems affecting a particular part of speech may be placed under
one heading. While the general terms "concord," "word order,"
etc., would cover a number of the specific items, there would remain too many miscellaneous ungrouped items to make such a
scheme of organization feasible. For that reason each general
item has been listed separately without regard for the order usually observed in works on syntax.·
SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT

Five textbooks among those examined for this study declare
flatly that "a verb must agree in number with it subject." As there
are no explanatory statements attached to the rule, the student is
forced to conclude that every verb in English must agree with the
form of the subject in number, regardless of the meaning or intention. The examples offered to illustrate the rules all tend to reinforce this conclusion. But the users of English all through its
7R

79

history have never felt constrained to observe formal concord;
they have· made their verbs agree with the feeling or intention of
the subject no matter what the form. " In the Anglo-Saxon period, we see plural subjects taking the singular verb . . . the
writer has recorded four unmistakable cases in B eowulf . . .. In
Chaucer's Squire~s Tale we read 'The spyces and the wyn is come
anon' . . .. . Malory says, 'was chosen .· . . the most men of worship.' These are typical of numerous passages in Malory, Latimer,
Marlowe, Shakespeare, and many Elizabethan authors.'' 1
Milton also used free syntax in subject-predicate agreement;
so did Cowley, Swift, Defoe, Hume, Lamb, Thackeray, and indeed
almost every writer of note to the middle of the nineteenth century.
From that time on, however, the rules of the eighteenth century
became rigid in the formalism of the nineteenth, with a resultant
closer attention to formal agreement. But examples of freer usage
as in Kipling's "The tumult and the shouting dies," if not common,
still serve to remind us that formal agreement in the subject-verb
relationship may be violated when the sense of the expression is
stronger than the feeling for concord. From the literature it appears that concord was settled entirely by the meaning of the
passage prior to the eighteenth century, as ·is witnessed by Shakespeare's very free use ; in the eighteenth century regimentation set
in, only slightly affecting the writers of that century but greatly
influencing the practice of the succeeding century, so that the
earlier freedom very largely, though not entirely, disappeared. But
many problems were left unsolved by the rules.
In this connection the comment of Jespersen 1s illuminating:
Those languages which have kept the old rule of concord in secondary
words are very often thereby involved in difficulties, and grammars have to
give more or less intricate rules which are not always observed in ordinary life . . . even by the "best writers." A few English quotations (taken
from M.E.G. II, Ch. VI) will show the nature of such difficulties with
verbs:
not one in ten of them write it so badly
ten is one and nine
none has more keenly felt them
neither of your friends are safe
if the death of neither man nor gnat are designed
one or two of his things are still worth your reading
'Hall , J. Lesslie, English Usage, pp. 53, 54.

80

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
his meat was locusts and wild honey
both death and I am found eternal
All these sentences are taken from well-known 'writers, the last, for instance from Milton.2

It is with these points of possible difficulty that we now deal,
·assorting them into distinct categories for greater convenience and
clarity. The classification is not exhaustive inasmuch as the items
listed are only those subject to definite rules in the school texts.
1. The verb with the compound subject. Textbook rule: "Two
or more singular subjects connected by a11d require a plural verb." 3
While it is generally true in modern usage that a compound subject
joined by and is followed by a plural verb, there are notable exceptions which cannot be ignored. For example, when a compound subject refers to one person, as in "My old friend and adviser is sick,"
the verb is always singular because the subject, though plural in
.form, is actually singular. Likewise when a series of subjects
is arranged in climactic order the verb tends to agree with the
last subject because of its emphasis, as in "Your families, your
homes, your country calls you to serve!" When a compound subject follows the verb, the verb is very often in the singular, as in
"there is · wealth and glory for the man who will do this." This
usage is more common after there is, there exists, etc. , as Curme
remarks: · "Survivals still occasionally occur also in literary
language after there 1'.s, there e.:rists, etc., i.e., in certain set expressions where the mind is not on the alert" ;4 although the ex_planati6n probably lies more in the accepted pattern ~£ th er~ is
plus a plural subject than in any lack of alertness of mmd. Smee
the there is combination is followed in the great majority of sentences by a singular subject it has become a standard way of introducing a subject, whether singular or plural, another example
of the victory of ~tsage over logical grammar. So well intrenched
. is this that the over-meticulous plural verb is uncomfortably conspicuous in the sentence, as in: "But what interests Sutter beyond
all else are the stories brought him by travelers," (Henry L.
Stewart, Harpers, January 1926). Needless to say, the verb is
would pass without notice in this sentence.
Several years ago a most amusing and at the same time significant controversy arose out of a sentence used by the Burling•Jespersen, Philosophy of Grammar, p. 209 .
•Pearson and Kirchwey , op. cit. p. 153.
• Curme, Syntas , p. 55.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

81

ton Railroad in an advertisement. The sentence ran, "For within
this tremendous area is produced: Two-thirds the oats, more than
half the corn, more than half the barley, half the wheat, half the
hogs, nearly half the cattle, nearly half the gold, wool and cotton." 5
The question of whether is or are was correct in this sentence
aroused national interest. Upon appeal the L iterary Digest and
Professor Phelps of Yale voted for arc; Professor R. K. Root of
Princeton and Bliss Perry of Harvard voted for is. The press
took up the discussion with editorials, news stories, and features .
The question was of course not settled and never will be until
either rule or usage becomes absolute.
In all the examples cited the number of the verb is clearly a
matter of agreement with the f eeling for number in the subject.
Instead of the iron-dad rule "Two or more singular subjects connected by and require a plural verb," the rule· should be stated:
Two or more subjects joined by and when felt to be plural are
followed by a ·plural verb; when the subject, though plural in
form, is felt to be a single entity, the singular verb may be used;
when the compound subject follows the verb, the verb is frequently in the singular, especially in the patterns there is, there exists.
2. Singular subjects formed with or, nor. Textbook rule:
"When two singular subjects are connected by or or nor, the subject is singular and the singular form of the verb should be used.'" 6
In such a sentence as "The president or the secretary is expected
to do this work," the singular nature of the subject is preserved
and the verb accordingly agrees. But in the sentence "Frank or
Jim have come on alternate weeks to my at homes," the subj ect is
really plural in idea though singular in form. Hence with or or nor
connecting two subjects there is greater freedom observed in the
verb agreement, despite the fact that strict logic demands the
singular. This fact is especially true in questions, in which the
singular verb though logically correct is so unusual as to be conspicuous. For example, "Is Frank or Jim here?" "Has father or
mother come in yet?" In these sentences the singular verb is distressingly odd where the plural would pass unnoticed. Curme
points out also the tendency to use the plural verb with negative
•From a pamphlet entitled B11rlington Blues issued by the Burlington Railroad, December 20, 192 6.
o Pearson and Kirchwey, op. cit ., p. 153

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

82

statements having a compound subject: "After neither . . . nor
we still often find the plural verb after singular subjects since
there has long been a tendency to give formal expression to the
plural idea which always lies in the negative form of statement." 7
He offers a number of examples, a few of which follow. "Neither
search nor labor are necessary" (Johnson); "Neither he nor his
lady were at home" (George \\l ashington); "Neither painting
.
.
nor fighting feed men" (Ruskin). 8
It is quite evident that the rule "When two singular s~bjects
are joined by or or nor, the subject is singular. and the sm~~lar
form of the verb should be used" needs considerable rev1s1on.
Any rule formulated for this case must point out ( 1_) that two
singular subjects joined by or or nor when felt to be singular and
alternative are followed by a singular verb; (2) that when they
are felt to be plural or grouped, are followed by a plural verb; ( 3)
that in questions the plural verb is almost always used; and ( 4)
that in negative statements the plural verb is very common. All
of these uses, unconsciously employed by the rule-makers them-·
selves, never enter the schoolbooks.
3. The singular subject with plural modification. Textbook
rule: "A verb agrees in number with its subject, regardless as to
whether or not a noun or nouns intervene between the verb and its
subject."9 If this rule were changed to read, "A verb agree~ wit~
the intended number of its subject, even though the form differ,
it would be much closer to the truth. When a singular noun
(singular in form) is followed by a modifier, especially a par~iti:e
group (which) conveys the idea of plurality . . . the verb is in
the plural, even though the governing noun is singular . . . ." 10
We frequently see such sentences as "A great heap of books are
on my table" ; "The entire list of candidates were interviewed" ;
"During 1931, $876,868.00 worth of books were distributed free."
From this common free use of the plural idea expressed by a
singular noun followed by a partitive modifier, we are not greatly
surprised to find H. C. Wyld, the noted Engli~~1 ling~i s.t ,_ saying
in his Historical Study of the Mother Tongue, Thus 111 time the
aggregate of impressions result in a memory picture. . .. "
,. Curme, Syntax, p. 56.
Loe. cit.
• Ravmond, 192 5, p. 199.
10 Curme, op. cit., p. 51.

A

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

83

4. A singular subject augmented by phrases introduced by
with, together with, as well as, 110 less than, etc. Textbook rule:
"Parenthetical expressions introduced by words such as with,
as well as, no less than, and the like do not affect the number of the
verb." 11 Ordinarily in such sentences the augmentation of the
subject is so distinctly parenthetical as to be without influence on
the number of the subject, so that a singular noun, though augmented, is followed by a singular verb. But occasionally the augmentation is distinctly cumulative, as though the secondary idea
were attached by a.i1d, in which case a plural verb is sometimes employed. Similarly, when the secondary idea stresses plural number,
the plural verb often follows. So we find generally: "John, together with some friends, was here yesterday" ; but "The captain as
well as most of his men were never seen again"; and "Old Sir John
with half-a-dozen men are at the door." Further examples: " . . .
the count, with my nephew and me, were introduced by his
son . . . " (Smollett) ; "Comparative phonetics, as well as experimental phonetics, are covered" (Prof. G. W. Gray in Quarterly Journal of Speech, November 1931 , p. 593). Here again as
in the cases previously cited the verb agreement is dependent upon
the concept of number in the subject rather than upon the form.
5. Collective nouns. Textbook rule: "A collective noun takes
a singular or a plural verb, according as the collection is thought
of as a whole or as composed of ind.ividuals. The committee have
disagreed. The common council was called to order." 1 ~ In this
instance the textbook rules correctly report English usage, which
in the case of the collective noun has always formed the verb in
agreement with the implied number of the subject. So strongly is
this agreement felt, that in colloquial speech and informal writing the noun actually changes number within a single sentence as
it is variously considered in its group and individual aspects.
Thus in a newspaper article we find, "Most of the throng which
will attend, if the two student bodies are excepted, care little who
wins, and is attending for the spectacle it hopes to see." Throng is
first considered as a group and is modified by which; it is next
considered as a collection of individuals who care little who wins;
then it becomes again a group in the singular with singular verbs
and a pronoun in agreement. While this sentence cannot ·be ad"Raymond. p. 199.
"Brooks. 1911. p. 125.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

84

'•

vanced as a model of English syntax, it is indeed an interesting
example of the psychological aspects of grammatical concord. One
is tempted to raise the question, Does not a sentence like this contain more subtle shades of 1~1eaning than one in which the collective noun is held singular or plural throughout for the sake of
grammatical orderliness? If the question can be answered affirmatively, and there is considerable defence for it, we may then accept
the shifting concept of number on utilitarian grounds. There is
no better defence for any English usage than that it is useful and
enhances the meaning or understanding of a sentence. The conservative Curme says, "The point .of view sometimes shifts within
one and the same sentence, so that the verb is now singular, now
plural, although the reference in the different cases is to the same
noun," and he cites an example from Adam Bede: "There was a
grand band hired from Rosseter, who, with their wonderful windinstruments and puffed-out cheeks, ·were themselves a delightful
show to the small boys." 13
6. Agreement with nouns of quantity. Textbook rule: "A
plural noun denoting one amount, when used as subject, takes a
singular verb."14 The same text offers the exercise "Six weeks
(does not or do not) seem like a very long time in Paris."JU In
this sentence the noun weeks may represent one amount and
take the verb does, or it may represent six units of time and take
the plural do. The school-child of course does not have the
privilege of choice; the rule says 'singular verb,' and he must use a
singular verb. On the same page 'is a still worse example of an
ill-considered exercise. In the sentence, "The hat with the plumes
(cost or costs) fourteen dollars" the pupil is told to choose the
'correct' verb. Inasmuch as no reference to tense is made, either
verb is correct, though the unfortunate student who selects cost
(past tense) will be penalized for making cost (present tense
plural) agree with plumes. In general, of course, the noun of
quantity though plural in form is considered an entity and is followed by a singular verb, but where the separate parts of the total
are considered individually the verb is plural. Thus we find. "Seven-eighths of the world's gold is in the United States," but , "ThreeCurme. op , cit., p , SI.
"Kimball, Book Two, 1911, p, 113.
Loe. cit.

13

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

85

fourths of the people are starving." The verb as usual agrees with
the meaning of the subject, regardless of its form.
Still another example of the faulty exercise is this: "A lot
of different kinds of soft drinks (is, are) drunk in this country." 16
If the writers expect the pupils to use is as a verb in agreement
with lot considered in the singular, they are running counter to
standard usage which accepts lot with a partitive modifier as a
plural; if they do .expect the plural verb are then their exercise
has no place in a consideration of number since they have provided
no discussion of the use of lot, numiber, etc. 1 as plurals.
The most preposterous of all textbook rules is the following:
"The pronoun I requires the plural form of all verbs except am,
and was." 17 This rule is cited as an exception to subject-verb
agreement! While it is obvious that the writer intends to show
that the third person singular, present tense, of the active verb is the
only distinctly singular form of the verb, it is inconceivable that
anyone would deliberately associate the idea of plurality with
singular pronoun I. To do so is to destroy utterly the meaning
of the word plural and to reduce the conscientious pupil to despair.
Furthermore it displays an astounding lack of any knowledge of
historical grammar on the part of the writer.
The foregoing discussion is a criticism of the inadequacy of
the textbook rules for subject-verb agreement with an attempt
to establish clearly two facts: First, that the rules as they appear
in the textbooks are too rigid to describe past and present l1sage;
and second, that they miss entirely the underlying principle of ·
English concord, that the verb always agrees with the intent of the
subject regardless of its form. Future texts must base all the rules
of concord on this fundamental concept which always has been
and probably always will be the actual basis for subject-verb agreement in English.
PRONOUN AGREEMENT

The pronouns ever·yone, everybody, anyone, a11ybody, etc., are
regularly listed by all the textbooks as singular pronouns only;
they are said to take the singular regimen wherever they are used.
"For instance, everyone, everybod31, everything seem to refer to

16

,. Kirby and Carpenter, Book Seven, 19.10, p . 181.
Clippinger, 1917, p , 5.

17

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

many persons or things; but they do not mean all persons or all
things taken together, but every single, separate person or every
single; separate thing. These pronouns are, therefore, singular;
they take singular verbs and are regarded as singular when used
as antecedents." 1 8 As far as verb agreement is concerned the
rules represent usage, for the singular verb has always been used
when adjacent to these indefinite pronouns. But as antecedents of
pronouns they have been and still are used as plural words when
the sense demands a plural, despite the efforts of rule-makers to
control them. In the eighteenth century there was some attempt at
reducing these forms to rule with only a modicum of success. "It
would not be difficult to demonstrate that the minute attention
to agreement, particularly of pronouns, had little effect upon the
writers of the period following. Probably quite as many cases of
reference of they and their to words like person and one and
everybody could be discovered in an equal number of pages of
Jane Austin or Walter Scott and of Addison or Swift."tv An
amusing example of the uncertainty, or at least freedom from rule,
prevailing in the eighteenth century is to be found in a letter from
John Oldmixon in answer to Swift's letter to the Earl of Oxford,
" . . . that everybody loves Flattery as well as himself,- and Will
take any Thing kindly that is said in their favour." 20
Professor Krapp limits indefinite pronouns to use in the singular only, saying, "The pronouns each, every, either, neither, any,
anyone, everyone, someone, somebody, everybody, nobody, no
one, etc., are singular . . . and are referred to by singular pronouns."21 On the other hand Curme recognizes the plural usage
in earlier English, and while pointing out that the singular is preferred today, admits that the plural may also be found. ""When a
pronoun or possessive adjective refers to a word plural in meaning, but in form being an indefinite pronoun in the singular . . .
it was once common to indicate the plural idea by the form of the
following pronoun or possessive adjective, but it is now usual to
put the pronoun or possessive adjective into the singular in accordance with the singular form of the antecedent: 'Nobody
knows what it is to lose a friend, till they have (now !/ie has) lost
him.' (Fielding). 'If the part deserved any comment, every con-

sidering Christian will make it themselves (now hi1nself) as they
go' (now he goes). (Defoe). 'I do not mean that I think anyone
to blame for taking due care of their (now his) health.' (Addison).
Older usage, however, still occasionally occurs: Every body is discontented with their (instead of his) lot in life.' (Beaconsfield).
This older literary usage survives in loose colloquial and popular
speech: 'Everybody has their (instead of his) faults.' 'It is the
duty of each student to interest themselves (instead of him self)
in athletics.' " 22 As an example of occasional use on the literary
level today the following sentence from a current issue of Harp er's
is interesting: "He had in his time been almost everybody's bosom
friend, and usually their secretary."23
The Leonard-Moffett study reveals a nice distinction in the
singular and plural use of the pronoun with everyone, ever;/body
in two cases, one quite clearly plural in meaning and the second
quite clearly singular. The first sentence, "Everyone was here, but
they all went home early" was placed 39 in a series of 102 items
with a composite rating of 2.4 (2.0--cultivated informal English)
and a rating by British linguists of 2.3. The second example,
"Everybody brought their own ticket" was placed 70 in the list
with a composite rating of 3.0 (half-way between acceptable and
uncultivated English). It is evident from these scores by competent judges that there is a distinction in the use of everyo11e and
everybody resting upon the implied number of the subject, n~gard­
less of rules. 24 If one may judge from current articles in the periodicals, present British usage is inclined to be more liberal toward
the plural use of the indefinite pronouns than is American usage.
" . . . there is good evidence that British usage is still equally unfettered in the matter. The great conservatism of American writers, as usual , has led them to follow this rule more carefully.''2°
McKnight observes, "In the use of pronouns following words or
word combinations with collective meanings British use often
gives a shock to an American's grammatical nerves. 'Their,' says
Richard Grant White, 'is very commonly misused with reference
to a singular noun.' 'A misuse of the word every,' he says in another place, 'is worth remark,-the using it in a plural sense, which

86

"Pearson and Kirchwey, 1928. p. 330.
1 11 Leonard, S. A. , Doctrine of Correctness, p. 225.
"'Ibid., p. 225.
21 Krapp , Compreh ensive Guide to Good Engli>h, p. 644.

2i

87

Curme, Syntax, p. 557.

23 Robertson , W. Graham, H arper'$ Magazi11 e. October, 193 1, p. 550.
"Leonard-Moffett, " Levels in English Usage," English Journal, l\lay,
353, 354.
2 s Leonard, Doctrint
of Correctness , p. 225 .

1927, pp.

88

...

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

is very common. Thus: Every person rose and took their leave.'
The kinds of. 'misuse' here condemned in American use, in British
use are established not only by long tradition but by current practice. The awkward necessity so often met with in American speech
of using the double pronoun, 'his br her,' is obviated by the 'misuse'
of their." 26 This discussion is followed by a long list of examples.
The impartial student is forced to conclude that the rigid rules
of the textbooks are not accurate in limiting the indefinite pronouns to singular use only. There are many occasions in English
speech and writing ~n which the plural use is desi rable for convenience, if not absolutely necessary. Less frequent but by no
means rare examples of actual necessity occur as in "Everyone
was waiting when I arrived, and they greeted me courteously,"
and "When the President left, everybody cheered; he lifted his
hat in acknowledgment to them." In these sentences the singular
pronoun would be absurd, and there is no real occasion for revision except to avoid the breach of purely formal agreement.n It
may be concluded, then, that the indefinite pronouns everyone,
everybody, either, neither, etc., when singular in meat1ing are referred to by a singular pronoun ;: when plural in meaning are
referred to by a plural pronoun. It must be added, however, that
American usage, far more than British usage, tends to keep these
pronouns singular whenever possible.
.
ADVERBIAL MODIFIERS

The position of Only.
The school textbooks in grammar and composition frown upon
the free position of only in such sentences as: "If I only had five
dollars!", "He only wanted to speak to me." In spi.te of the
almost universal acceptance of these constructions in colloquial
speech and much current writing, the textbooks maintain that unless the word only is in immediate juxtaposition to the word it
modifies the meaning becomes obscured or ambiguous . Therefore
they list such rules and examples as these:
29 McKnight, "Conservat ism in American Speech/' American Speech, Vol. I. p. 12.
21 Professor Leonard tells the story, "I found a remarkable in stan ce of 1correctncs.s'
in a child's story of being ducked while in swimming. 'When I came up , everybody was
laughing at me, but I was glad to see him }ust the same.' This was written in a seventhgrade English clas~ without anyone's ~orrection or. suggestion of the form." D octrine <>!
Correctness, p. 224, footnote .
·

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

89

a) "The adverb only should be placed as near as possible to
the word it modifies.
Wrong : One can only succeed by hard work."28
All these rules and examples are based upon the assumption
that if the word bnly is separated from the word or phrase it
modifies, some appreciable _degree of ambiguity or obscurity results. This · assumption is unsound, for in common speech the
phrase " I only had five dollars" is normal and is never misunderstood. In fact , should a speaker desire to limit the subject in such
a sentence, he is compelled to stress the pronoun and supply a
word like alone to be sure his meaning is clear. Similarly in the
less specific uses of only, as in "If my vacation only would come!"
or "If only J olm were here!" there is no feeling that the modifier
limits the subject. Surely in the last sentence quoted one might
expect the position of onl')I, immediately preceding the subject, to
lead to misunderstanding, but it is safe to assert that in all ordinary uses such a Sentence is never misconstrued.
Some textbook writers feel constrained in spite of personal
prejudice, to make some acknowledgment of current usage. Such
statements as these may therefore be found:
a) Incorrect : I only wanted one but I received several . (This position for
only is almost idiomatic in colloquial use. In writing and in formal speech,
say, I wanted only one, or I wanted one only.)20
b ) English idiom srems to sanction a loose use of only whenever the meaning is obvious from the context.SO

Such extreme caution as is implied in the words "almost idiomatic" and "seems to sanction" illustrates clearly the predicament
of textbook grammarians confronted with the facts of usage.
More adequate by far · is the rule given by a textbook designed
for the elementary grades :
c) Adverbial expressions should be w placed in the sentence as to convey
just the meaning intended.Bl

Although the examples which follow this rule indicate beyond
a doubt a narrow interpretati on of it , yet the rule itself is sound
and is inclusive enough to satisfy the demands of current us~ge.
28 Lewis and Hosie, 1916, p. 76.
"French , p, 110.
"Thomas, Manchester, and Scott. 192 5, p. 163.
"Scott-Southworth , Book Two, 192 5, p. 222.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

Turning now to the opinions of the authorities in usage, we
find this statement by J. Lesslie Hall:

that the writer knew what he was doing and deliberately used
All students are not industrious because it is common usage in
English and is not misunderstood. In fact, to express the idea of
"lack of industry" as a characteristic of "all students" requires an
entirely different sentence plan, for "All students are not industrious" would not convey the idea. Sometimes like "All students are
lazy" would be necessary.
Professor Leonard has a note concerning this construction in
the eighteenth century.

90

The position of only has long been a burning question in English. Not to
go farther back than fifty years, Dean Alford said in 1864 that the
pedants were very strict but the language very liberal'. "The adverb only"
says he, "in many sentences where strictly speaking it ought to follow its
verb, and to limit the objects of the verb, is in good English placed before
the verb." "I only saw a man," he says, is our ordinary colloquial English;
but the pedant should compel us to say, "I saw only a man." The question is the same in our day; rhetorical scholars and grammarians make their
rule; the great authors, the great majority o[ them, are utterly oblivious
of the rule and care nothing for it.
The best and most helpful statement as to only is found in Mother
Tongue (Ill) by Gardiner, Kittredge, and Arnold. "Good usage does not
fix absolutely the position of only with respect to the word it modifies.
There is but one safe rule: Shun ambiguity. If this is observed, the pupil
may feel secure."32

Concerning this usage in the eighteenth century Professor
Leonard says,
The rules for placing modifiers were of course dictated by a general purpose
of securing greater clarity; but when grammarians came to look about
for actual instances, they rarely confined themselves to sentences which
might actually cause difficulty or misunderstanding in their context, since
such sentences are not really common in experienced writers. Instead, critics
took the usual short-cut of pitching upon sentences of a fixed type regardless of their clarity or lack of clarity. Sentences containing adverbs like only
came in handy.33

The only valid objection to the position of only in any sentence
is that in that sentence its position leads to ambiguity or misunderstanding. Insomuch as in the great majority of sentences no
misunderstanding occurs, the specific rules of the text are based
upon a false assumption, and must be greatly revised to represent
adequately current usage.
Not all.
Quite in the same vein as the objections to the placing of only
is this comment on the use of not with all. "Especial care should
be taken in using the words not and only. Such a sentence as All
students are not indu.,strious is sometimes used when the author
intends to say Not all students a.re indu.strious."34 The answer 1s
Hall , J. Lesslie, English Usage, pp. 187 , 189.
3l Leonard S. A. , The Doctrine of Co"ect11 ess . p. 96.
1
" Clippinger, 191 7·, p . I 72 .
32

91

About placing not, the eighteenth century was quite free of formula :
Every just observation does not occur to any one Mind (Reflections,
1770, Preface, p. 10.)
All subjects do not equally require precision (Blair, Lectures, I, p. 176.)
All opinions are not received into tbe l~nguage (Michaelis, p. 2.)
These forms were not objected to, and seem perfectly clear .au

Correlatives.
The rules for the correlatives not only .. . but also, 11either
. . . nor, either . . . or, etc., spring from a purpose identical with
that for ·the rule about only ;· namely, a desire to avoid ambiguity.
But as in the case of most rules once liberally interpreted, they
have become formal and inviolable in the current textbooks.
"Place correlatives . . . next to corresponding parts of speech.
Incorrect: I neither trusted him nor his brother." 3 G As in the
case of the rules for the position of 011/y, these rules for the correlatives originally designed to express a general principle of
orderliness have been copied from book to book as rigid commandments with no effort at all to determine the nature of literary and current practice. Hall 37 cites numerous examples from
his reading.
Professor Curme3 8 cites the use of the correlative conjunctions but adds no restriction on their use. There seems no adequate reason for requiring correlative conjunctions to be used
only with parallel constructions; current practice is endorsed by a
Jong literary history in allowing the free use of the correlatives
when the construction employed does not obscure the intended
mean mg.
" Leonard, S. A., op. cit., p. 98 .
"" French, p . 110.
37 Hall , J. Lesslie, op. cit., p. 182.
38 Curme, Syntax, p . 164.

92

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

So and Such as intensifying adverbs.
The use of the words so and such as simple intensifying adverbs is strongly condemned by some of the current textbooks for
all levels of discourse, and in others is excluded from formal
writing. That English teachers in general follow the lead of the
textbooks so far as their teaching is concerned is revealed by a
ballot on usage answered by approximately 150 teachers of English
in the state of Colorado. Concerning the use of so as an adverb,
but two teachers allowed it to be formally correct usage, 33 acknowledged it to be fully acceptable, 94 felt that it was doubtful,
and 12 condemned it utterly as illiterate. 39 The textbooks contain
the following typical statements :
a) Wlith the exception of and, there is no more abused word than so.
Like charity, it covers a multitude of sins. There is perhaps no better
place t.o point out the various meanings of the word and its uses, proper
and improper.
So as an adverb.
Proper: I was never so angry.
Improper in formal writing : ("feminine intensive")
I was so angry! (So is used here in place of very, exceedingly, etc.)
Such is similarly misused. It should be followed by a clause of result
introduced by that.•O

The almost universal dissemination of these rules for so and such
is an interesting example of the power of literary tradition to
survive in the face of literary and colloquial practice. Many of
the selections of standard literature used in the classroom by the
same teachers who condemn this usage contain so and szteh as
simple intensives. Moreover, the New English Dictionary acknowledges this usage as follows: "So 14: In affirmative clauses,
tending to become a mere intensive without comparative force,
and sometimes emphasized in speaking and writing. Used thus
by King Alfred, Gower, Dryden, Richardson, Keats, Dickens, Mrs.
Gaskell, and others."
Concerning the word so as an adverb, Russell Thomas 41
shows beyond all doubt that it has been used regularly by writers
when a comparison is implied, even though not expressed, as in the
quotations:
'" Pooley, Ha11dhook of Cu"enl English Usage, Colorado State Teachers College Bulletin, June 1930, p. 27.
40 Thomas Manchester, and Scott, 1925. pp. 151 , 170.
u Thomas: "Language Attitude, " English Journal , September, 1930, pp. 557 to 560.

GR.AMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

93

Browning, Pheidippides:
"Too rash,
Love in its choice, paid you so largely service so slack."
Bridges, The Garden in September:
"How love so young could be so sweet."

Moreover, his examples include others from the Blickli11g H omil-ies
to Stuart P. Sherman in which the so is a pure intensive, with no
comparison implied or expressed, as in:
Tennyson, Tears, Idle Tears:
"So sad, so fresh, the days that are no more."
Century Magazine, August, 1929, p. 455: "Survivors of 1865-So like
to One Another, So Different from Other People."

In view of so many clear examples from standard literature,
the positive dicta of the te;tbooks seem a trifle absurd. If one's
taste is offended by the use of . so as an intensive adverb he may
avoid its use and deplore it in others, but there is little justification
·. for excluding it from the usage of ordinary English.
THE DOU BLE NEGATIVE

That two negatives used in a negative predication reverse the
meaning and form a positive statement is a curious tradition first
enunciated by Lowth in the eighteenth century and still warmly
cherished by English teachers. It is all the more surprising that
this conception survives with no apparent diminution in strength
when one recalls the current prevalence of the phrases "can't
hardly" and "can't scarcely" in the daily usage of educated people,
including the majority of teachers. Sentences containing these
phrases may be frowned upon by the more exacting teacher, but
they are never misconstrued . to be entirely affirmative; thus, "I
can't hardly read this" is never interpreted as meaning. "I read
this with great ease." The double negative in most case~ may be
fairly excluded from writing and speech of the present clay on the
grounds that it is out of style, currently unacceptable, but surely
not on any grounds of logic or paradox. But the textbooks still
adhere to the old tradition.
A person soon learns that in English two nega tives coming together
·cancel each other. He is quickly told that to say I didn't do nothing does
not mean what the person who says it usually means. The not, represented
by n'.t, and the nothing render each other powerless. The sentence really

94

UNIVERSITY OF. WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

means that the person did something and that is usually opposite to what
the speaker meant. Such expressions are called double negatives.42

The next quotation does omit any reference to the 'cancelling'
power of two negatives, but still fails to furnish an adequate reason for the prohibition.
When the verb makes a negative assertion, it is unnecessary and incorrect to use the adjective no to denote the absence or Jack of a quality
or thing.'8

Of this usage Logan Pearsall Smith in his monograph E11glish
Idioms, says,
Owing to the efforts of . .. grammarians a number of English idiomatic
usages have been stigmatized as incorrect, and driven from our standard
speech. Of these, perhaps, the most conspicuous is the double negative,
which was perfectly correct in the time of Chaucer, lingered on till the age
of Shakespeare, and is still current in the speech of the vast majority of
English people. Owing, however, to the logical (but most unpsychological)
notion that doubling a negative destroys, instead of strengthening it, thi~
idiom, although it was correct in Greek, and has practically reestablished
itself in French, is regarded as a gross vulgarism in modem Engiish.H

Such expressions as "I didn't get no book" and "I haven't seen
nobody" may be considered entirely outside the range of acceptable
current English, even though that range be liberally interpreted,
but the forms " didn't hardly," "haven't scarcely," "wouldn't
hardly" can less certainly be excluded. It is true that a ballot of
English teachers in the state of Colorado on this usage revealed
an overwhelming opinion that " haven't hardly" is definitely illiterate English. But it is also true that a large number of these
teachers use the expression .unconsciously in informal speech.4°
Leonard and Moffett likewise found general di sapproval in
the example "I haven't hardly any money." On a scale of four
points, in which 1 represented literary usage, and 4 illiteracy, the
general average of scores was 3.8. British judges ranked it 4.0.4G
•• Leonard-llfoffett, " Levels in English Usage," English Journal, May 1927, p. 355.

It would seem, therefore, that "haven't hardly" has · at present no
standing in written English, in spite of its notably widespread use
m speech.
., Kirby and Carpenter, Book Ei~ht , 1930. p . 276.
••Pearson and Kirchwcy, t 928. p. 164.
·
"Smith, Logan Pearsall, English Idioms , S.P.E .. Tract No. XII . London, 1928, p. 10.
"Pooley .. Handbook of Cu"ent English Usage , Colorado State Teachers College Bulletin , June 1930, p . 39 .

!J5

THE SPLIT INFINITIVE

The question as to whether one may "split" an infinitive by
placing an adverbial modifier between the "to" and the infinitive
form of the verb has been hotly debated for a century. "Apparently, it was both a discovery and an aversion of nineteenthcentury grammarians." 47 In spite of the quantities of print on the
subject, and the definitive statements of linguists and grammarians,
the textbooks still cleave to the nineteenth-century aversion, stating their objections with varying degrees of certainty.
A modifier should not be placed between the parts of an infinitive.
W.rong : We wished to thoroughly explore the cave.•s
Do not insert an adverbial expression between the two parts of an
infinitive. An occasional violation of this rule for the purpose of securing
emphasis is permissable.•9

The "occasional violators" of this rule are so numerous and
so respectable and the period of their "violations" covers such a
long stretch in the history of English that the rule itself becomes v
little more than pedantic rubbish. The vast number of examples
of this usage in standard literature,'•0 together with the statements
of acknowledged scholars should certainly be sufficient evidence to
settle this question for all time.
Otto Jespersen says of the split infinitive:
. . . The linguistic instinct now takes to to belong to the preceding verb
rather than to the infinitive, a fact which, together with other circumstances, serves to explain the phenomenon usually mistermed "the split
infinitive." This name is bad because we have many infinitives without
to . . . Although examples of an adverb between to and the infinitive
occur as early as the fourteenth century, they do not become very frequent until the latter half of the nineteenth century. In some cases they
decidedly contribute to the clearness of the sentence by showing at once
what word is qualified by the adverb .51

Developing more fully this explanation of the need for the divided infinitive on the grounds of clarity and emphasis, Professor
Curme writes,
'1 Leonard, S. A., Doctrinr. of Correctr1 ess, P. 95.
"Cli ppinger, 1917, p . 172 .
••Thomas, Manchester, and Scott, 1925 , p. 535 .

MThe American authors ·alone include "Franklin , Freneau, Irvin~ , Whittier , :Motley,
Howthorne Lowell , llret Harte, H. C. Lod~e. J ohn Fiske, T. B. Aldrich, Cable, Mabie,
Katherine Lee Bates, J . K. Hosmer, A. D. White. W. D. Whitney, Roooevelt, and Woodrow Wil -:on.'' From 2 n article by Wa11ace Rice, Th e Chicago Tribune, 1928 .
r.1 j e5pe rsen, Growth and Stru rture of the English Language, p. 210.
0

96

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
When the adverb precedes a verb, the verb seems more important to our
feeling than the adverb even though the adverb may also be stressed. But
when we are not calling attention to the verbal activity so much as to
some particular in connection with it, we place the adverb expressing that
particular after the verb. It is this feature that has furthered the development of the split infinitive.

J. Lesslie Hall presents an interesting compari son of rule and
usage for the split infinitive in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Shall an adverb be put between to and the other part of an infinitive? . ..
This is a "burning question" and one on which verbalists disagree.
Dean Alford, in 1864, said, "Surely this is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers." At this very moment Dean Alford
could have found the · split infinitive in the writings of Dickens, Matthew
Arnold, Mrs. Gaskell, Browning, George Eliot, of his own day, Burns,
Byron, Coleridge, Goldsmith, and others of earlier periods.
We must all admit, then, that the split infinitive is neither an innovation nor a vulgarism, but a rarity in pure literature; that it is very clear
and very convenient and has a right to a trial in the Ianguage. 53

.

,>

••
I

•·

The discussion of the uses of the adverb in infinitive constructions can find no better lead than that offered by Professor Curme.
When the verbal force of the infinitive is strongly felt, its adverbial modifiers are naturally placed as they would be in a
sentence in which the verb is strongly stressed (as in the phrase
strongly stressed just preceding). When the adverb is the more
important feature it tends to foil ow the verb (as in it is stressed
strongly) . It is only natural and idiomatic, therefore, to find in
sentences in which the infinitive has an actual verbal force one or
more adverbial modifiers preceding it. The following sentences
illustrate the point well: "He stood high in the colony, was
extravagant and fond of display, and, his fortune being jeopardized, he hoped to 11wre than retrieve it by going into speculations in
western lands" (Theodore Roosevelt, The Winning of the West,
Vol. I, Ch. II). "To an active mind it may be easier to bear along
all the qualifications of an idea than to first imperfectly conceive
such an idea" (Herbert Spencer, Philosophy of Style). "When I
hear gentlemen say that politics ought to let business alone, I
feel like inviting them to first consider whether business is letting
politics alone'' (Woodrow Wilson, February 24, 1912). 54
"Curme, "The Split Infinitive, " American Speech, Vol. 11, P· 341.
.. Hall, J: Le5slie, English Usage, pp. 266·211.
.
"I am indebted to Professor Curme loc. cit., !or these illustrat1ons.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

In view of the overwhelming evidence in support of the split
infinitive it seems not unreasonable to expect the schoolbooks to
refrain from prohibiting it at least, and better still, to give some
adequate description of its use. The following is a suggestion:
The adverbial modifier of an infinitive may be placed between the
parts of the infinitive as in to steadil·y labo1' or immediately following it, as in to labor steadily. When the adverbial modifier is short
and is less en~phatic than the verbal force of the infinitive, it is
hsually placed between the to and the rest of the infinitive: H e
worked silently and swiftly, hoping to speedily end his patient's
discomfort. When the adverbial modifier is long, or is more emphatic than the verbal force of the infinitive, it is usually placed
after it : He came to expect ever more and more a change in hi s
too even life ; I want you to come qwickl-y. Many stylists avoid
splitting the infinitive as a mark of elegance, but usage has established it beyond any doubt.
The discussion of the split infinitive raises two other interestmg questions. Is the to a necessary part of the infinitive? May the
to stand alone in place of a previously expressed infinitive?
Concerning the first question, Whitney says:
The root-infinitive usually has before it the preposition to, which is called
· its sign, and is to be considered and described as a part of it. In the oldest
English, this preposition was only used with the infinitive when it had a
real prepositional value . ...
But the to is also in a great many cases omitted.
a. After verbs generally used as auxilliaries: do, will, shall, may, can,
and must.
b. After a few other verbs, either usually or optionally: dare, lielp,
need, 'gin (for begin) ; and please and go in certain uses .
c. In certain peculiar or elliptical constructions: had followed by lief,
rather; in comparative phrases, like as well yield at once as struggle
vainly; after but following a negative; thu s, she cannot but grieve for
him.
d. After certain verbs, when proceded by a word having the relation of
object to those verbs, but also the logical value of a subject to the
infinitive: see, hear, feel, let, make, bid, help, have, (in the sense of
"make" or "cause"), know, find. 55

With so many .uses of the root infiniti ve without the preposition
to, we are prepared for the definite statement of the C eutury Dictionary under the discussion of to with the infinitive, " The preposi"'Whitney, Essent ials of Englisli Grammar , 1877, p. 212 .

98

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

tion is no part of the verb." It is consistent with the idiom of
English to find groups of infinitives introduced by a single to, as
in Shakespeare's " To shake the head, relent, and sigh, and yield,"
and in the common phrases "To come and go," "to do or die," ""to
win or lose." With these examples in mind there seems no reasonable objection to such sentences as: " He determined to enter and
win the race" ; "She refused to eat, talk, or move." The use of' the
infinitive in compound relationships such as these has led to a
still further development in such phrases as " try and do it," "come
and see me" which are considered problems of usage rather than
syntax and are therefore discussed in the next chapter. 56 Leaving
out of consideration for the moment this last use of the infinitive,
it may he justly concluded that the preposition to may introduce
a group of infinitives without being repeated before each one.
On the other hand, may the to be used alone to represent an
infinitive previously expressed or understood as in the sentence
"I ought to go, but I don't want to (go) " ? Dean Alford said in
1864 "It seems to me, that we ever regard the 'to' of the infinitive
as inseparable from the verb."" One text abo objects to this construction with the words, "In writing, to alone should not be used
in place of an infinitive: 'Do as I told you to .' ""' It has already
been shown that Dean Alford was wrong with regard to the to
introducing more than one infinitive; in the examples given above
the " to" was entirely separable from the verb. It remains to show
that he was also wrong with respect to the to substituted for the
verb. Whitney says "The infinitive or the participle of a repeated
verb-phrase is very often omitted and the auxilliary left alone to
represent the phrase; . . . In easy colloquial speech even a repeated infinitive is represented by its sign to alone."" 8
Professor Jespersen gives the example "Will you come? I
should like to" and calls this use of the word to a pro-infinitive on
the analogy of the pronoun. 511 In a later amplification he adds "in
the same way in colloquial English we may have an isolated to
standing as a representative of an infinitive with to : I told th eni to
( -- I told them tn nm) P~ychologically these are cases of aposiopesis ('stop-short sentences' or 'pull-up sentences') . . . the in,. See p. 118.
or Scott-Southworth , Book Two, 1925. p. 213.
"'Whitney, op. cit. , p. 242.
""Jespersen, Philosophy of Grammar, p. 82 .

GRAMMAR ANn USAGE IN TEXTBOOilS

99

fin~tive is left out .as. in (Will you play?) Yes, I will, or Yes I am
go mg to (I a.1n wdli11g to, anxious to). oo
There ~~ems to be no doubt as to lhe cu111plde i11dependence of
the prepos1t1011 to and the root infinitive. Either the root infi nitive
. f .
may stand alone, hot only with certain verbs !)Lil 1'11 g1fi ·r
·
uup:s u mm ives mtroduced by an initial to or the t 0 1
.
t
If
se may stand alone
ti
·
. _
'
~~ 1e s1g~ .of"a prev1uusly expressed or implied infinitive. Th I
. mseparab1lity of which Dean Alford wrote simplv does not exJ
cannot be advanced as an argument
, . against
. . certainly
,
the'
"ist, and
· sp 1ittmg ' of the infinitive.
THE DANGLING PARTICIPLE AND GERUND

Writers of text.books, especially those of high school and college l~vel, agree qwte generally that the participial or gerund
· · o f t he sentence must be followed close!
con
struct1on at. the begmnmg
bydthe subject of the sentence.' that the subJ'ect mus t be expressedy
~n t~a~ the rel~tionship betwe;'.1 the verbal modifier and the sub~
;ect ..mst be c1ea1 and unamu1guuus. Failure to observe thes
rules of syntax results in a misrelated or " dang!i 11g" co t
t'
cf
·
ns rue lOn o
t· I I
a par. icu ar y hemous nature, always avoided by careful writers
tand brighteously
· condenmed by g rammarians · Two examp1es from
ext ooks will serve to show the nature of the rules:
· · 1 or a gerund phrase is correctly used generally
.a) A parf iop1a
mg, only
'
speak-

(hl) \.Vhen the no~~ or pronoun which it modifies, or which represents
t e agent
. expresses, is explicit!
. or rec1p1ent of th e ac f ion t hat it

present m the sentence; and

Y

( 2) When the parts of t.he sentence in which it appears are so ordered

that_the reader unconsc1ously connects it with the

m~=~

~~~~

b ) A pa~ticiple that has no noun or pronoun to modify is called a loose
~r dangl1~g, participle. "Loose" participles show loose and careless think~
mg. Avmd them and be careful not only to express the noun or the prono.un that the participle modifies, but also to place the participle so near '
this word that there can be no mistake as to the meaning.62

~t .is granted at the outset of this discussion that the misrelated
partic1ple or gerund frequently produces an effect distressing to
00 Ibid., p. 142.
;,'PThomas, Manc~estcr, and Scott , 1925 p. 164
. . earson and Kirchwey 1928 P 394 ' S
·
.
e also Lewis and Hosie, 1916, P 78
Cltppmger, 1917, p. 167 ; Fre~ch 1924 . .2'97. eR
'
• p.
, aymond, 1925, p . 103, 1o6.
· ;

100

GR.AMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

the orderly mind; the meaning is not only distorted but .is sometimes rendered utterly ludicrous. No student once ha vmg read
or heard such sentences as, "While engaged in a delicate piece of
crocheting, an elephant passed our house," or "Having e~~en our
lunch, the car pushed its way through the tortuous canyon, w~ul<l
be apt to commit so obvious a fault; these sentences he. rec~gmzed
as " howlers ," subi·ect to ridicule.ua But much less obvious. 1s such
a sentence as this: "Having looked at our watches, no time. w.as
lost in getting started on our way." The gram:~ari.an can 111s1st
that " time" is the subject of the verbal phrase havmg looked at .
our watches, " but in actual speech does anyone misconstrue such
a sentence? In writing, it is true, under cold and deliberate scrutiny this sentence ·incurs censure, but is it misunderstood? ~s it not
a certain feeling for syntactical orderliness rather than misunderstanding of the author's meaning which prompts criticism of such
a sentence? And furthermore, if the meaning is so clear that the
sense of orderliness is lulled by the felicitous expression of the
idea, do not even careful writers under such circumstances violate
the rules for participial and gerund constructions? T.he las~ question can be answered affirmatively from overwhel111111g evidence.
J. Lesslie Hall says, "This construction is condemned in pr~c­
tically all the textbooks on grammar and rhetoric." After a discussion of the rules as they appear in the textbooks, and a comment on the verdict of Professor Krapp, which is treated more
fully below, he continues, "Let us see, then, what a disinter~sted
foreigner says about it .. .. We refer to Matzner, the em~1~ent
grammarian. Of this participle he says, 'Although the part1c1~le
in general, where it stands absolutely, is not without . a substantive
or pronoun on which it has to lean, participles standmg alone also
occur, which lean in part mediately upon a noun , or lea~e to be
supplied a notion already named ; but, in pa.r t, completely isolated,
must have a subject to be conjectured.' This scholar, then, reco.gnizes the participle standing alone."G~ Hall also pr~sents a lt st
from hi s own reading, showing 189 instances of the isolated participle or gerund in 68 authorities from L~ti.me:· to Stevenson. In
· J1e says , "The 'misrelated partic11)le goes back to the
cone1us1on
Anglo-Saxon period. It is found both in prose and in poetry. It
n:t Profes!'or \V. E. Leonard furni~hes another cxampl~ frfm ~ne
of an earlier date: "Going up the hill, the statue of Lmco n s rue
" Hall, J. Lesslie, Englislt Usage, pp. 167 , 168.

kf

his r;~s~man themes
my e ·

101

comes out clearly in Mandeville and Chaucer. . . . It is seen in
the Mystery Plays, Lat.imer, Shakespeare, and in every decade
down to the present day. It is used in polite society and by cultivated speakers without number. Certainly it may be called the
'misapprehended,' the 'persecuted' participle."u"
Professor Krapp states the general rule, but adds a note inclicating that its observance is not universal. "A modifying word
or phrase must be used in such a way as to make clear the syntactical relationship of the word or phrase to the part of the sentence
which it modifies. Thus a present participle should not be used
without a word to which it may be attached, as in Examining the
bo."t:, the 11io11ey was found untouched. But this rule is not invariably observed even by good writers, as in Thence, looking up and
however far, each fir stands separate against the sky no bigger than
an eyelash (Stevenson, Silverado Squatters) ."66 But Professor
Krapp himself writes, " Looking back there to the primitive psychology of human speech, what are the evidences with respect to
this notion of original simplicity and orderliness ?"6• In this
sentence by an eminent scholar the isolated syntax of the participle
" looking" is apparently not felt to be improper usage, even though
it is used "without a word to which it may be attached."
A more recent study 08 is devoted to a comparison of the rules
of contemporary textbook writers with their own usage regarding
the misrelated constructions. Quoting rules (for the dangling
participle) from a dozen or more texts, the author displays in
each case sentences from the same or another work by the same
writer in which he has unconsciously used the isolated participle.
Similarly, and with even more instances, he shows that the dangling
gerund is frequent in the writings of those who oppose it by
formal rules. Quite properly he says, "My object in bringing to
light some discrepancies between canon and practice is not to
reveal that rhetoricians slip occasionally; for to my mind their
supposed slips are not slips at all. Rather my object is to sho\~
that the very discrepancies prove the rules unwarranted, and that
therefore breaches of these rules cannot properly be regarded as
. cone1us1011,
.
"Af ter carefully weighing all the
errors. "69 A n d 111
05
Hall, J. Lesslie , op. cit .. p. 170.
,. Krapp, Comprelzensive Guide t o Good E"glish , p. 64 7.
01
Krapp, Th e Kn07l'ledge of Englislt p. 37.
'"Steinbach, "The Misrelated Constr~ctions" American Speech Vol V pp 181·197
"Ibid, p. 181.
'
'
. '
.
.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE JN TEXTBOOKS

103

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

102

facts, my inference is that the rules forbidding these locutions are
decidedly weak." 70
Professor Curme, on the other hand, sides with the rule-makers. He says "In general, however, although occasionally found
in good authors it is felt as slovenly English in spite of its frequency in colloquial speech: 'Bei.ng not yet fully grown, his trousers were too long.' In older English, the dangling participle was
more widely used than today. lt was employed even by careful
writers ~here it cannot now be used : 'In their meals there is
great silence and grauitie, using wine rather to ease the stomacke
then (now than) to load it.' (John L yly, Etipfmes and H is E nglmid, Works, II, p. 194, A . D. 1580) ." 71 There is sufficient
evidence to take exception to Professor Curme's statement in
three points: first, that the use of the dangling construction is
'occasional' in literature: second, thlat 'it is felt as slovenly
English' ; and third, that it was used in the past 'where it cannot
now be used.' J . Lesslie Hall has shown that this construction is
widely found in literature throughout the history of English; it
is easier to find examples of it than to find examples of almost any
other disputed usage. He quotes Professor O . F. Emerson as
saying, "This is the misrelated participle occasionally found in
modern English," but a glance at the table reveals that Professor
72
Emerson himself contributed three of the examples used by Hall.
The word 'occasional' cannot be used accurately in describing the
frequency of this usage.
To the charge that it is felt to be ' slov~nly English' we must
answer it is felt so in theory, but not in practice. Mr. Steinbach
has shown that the leading college grammarians steadfastly propose rules for the dangling constructions which they themselves
do not observe in writing. Moreover, he adds a list of distinguished
students of language who have not felt, in their own writings, that
they were guilty of 'slovenly English' in employing an isolated
participle or gerund. The list includes (with the date of the work
in which the example was found) : G. P. Marsh , 1862; John
Earle, 1890; Barrett Wendel, 1893; T. R. Lounsbury, 1908;
George Saintsbury, 1912 ; W. T. Brewster, 1913; F . H . Vi zetelly,
1915; Robert Bridges, 1921 ; L. P . Smith, 1923.73 Examples taken
//>id ., p. 196.
" Curme, Syntax , p. 160.
"Hall, J. Lesslie, op. cit .. p.
"Steinbach, op. cit., p. 195.

from the published works of men of such caliber cannot be branded
'slovenly English.'
. It is a little mo~e difficult to an;;wer exactly the third proposition, that tl~e dangltng constructions cannot be used today as they
once were, .masmuch as Professor Curme offers but one example.
Moreover m the example he offers, the construction which is no
101~ger. acceptable is not the · dangling participle, but rather the
adjective clause modifying a possessive pronoun "their." N 0 one
today may _say " At their banquet there was wine, who seldom
touch anythmg but water." \Ve may agree with Professor Curme
that the sentence he offers is out of accord with present-day syntax,. but _not because of the dangling construction. The type of
modification use~ by Lyly is no longer acceptable, and for that
reaso:~ the danglmg lUodifier "is employed where it cannot now ·be
used. . On the other hand, there are abundant examples from current ltt~rature to pr~ve .that wherever the misrelated participle was
use~ w~thout obscurity 111 the past it may be used today with equal
clanty.•4
A~ter all, alth~ugh the textbooks fail to observe the fact, the
danglmg constructions are a form of ellipsis. Like all other ellipses
~hey. are good when the meaning is clear, but bad when the mean111~ 1s obscured. When Robert Bridges writes,7 G " In talking with
~n en~s the_ common pleas ·. . . ," he means of course, " In talkmg with fnends, I learn that the common plea . .." or "[ ami told
~hat. · · ·'.' No one could possibly mistake his meaning. Rather he
is emplo~mg ,; comn~enda?le a1:d useful abbreviation in which the
construction In talkmg with friends" is fully equivalent to "Wh
I am talking to friends , I learn. . . ." The omitted clause is
more necessary here than in "I am as tall as she is tall," wher'e the
complementary clause is always omitted. N 0 general rule can be
advanced to cover all cases; each use must rest upon its fitness
and clearness in the sentence.
The t extb~oks, therefore, must modify their rules considerably.
They n:ust pomt out that although the initial participial or gerund
phrase is frequently followed by an expressed subject, the subject
can be and frequently is omitted when the meaning is not obscured.
They must show by examples when the subj' ect may or may not

~:

i.t As for example
"M using b
· ht
h
Y mg · on t ee, this fancy came·."
Leonard, Sonnets on Shak esp eare.

William Ellery

"Bridges, "On English Homophones," Society for Pure E nglish , Tract II, p. 22.

TO

170.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

104

be omitted. And most o.f all they must cease to brand the usage in
its legitimate functions as 'slovenly English,' 'improper usage,' or
as a sign of 'loose and careless thinking.'
THE CASE oF THE NouN OR PRONOUN WITH GERUND

There is considerable uncertainty and doubt at the present
time concerning the correct case of the noun or the pronoun preceding a gerund. A recent letter of enquiry puts the problem
clearly. Quoting the sentence in question, " I discovered when
selling hose of the old construction why cities had to replenish it
so often and I laid (sic!) awake nights trying to find a remedy to
prevent the. cracking of the rubber by reason of it being necessary
to carry the hose flattened," the writer says, "Our proof-reader
changed the second 'it' to read 'its,' having the rule in mind that
the substantive modifying a gerund should be in the possessive
case (Woolley, 1909 edition, p. 18.) " 76 The rule here referred to
appears in various forms in the current textbooks.
It is clear from these rules that the textbooks favor the possessive case for the substantive modifying a gerund particularly
when it is a pronoun. Oddly enough in the eighteenth century
there were vigorous denunciations of the possessive case in this
construction, the objective case being preferred.
The first comment on this construction is a severe reprobation by George
Harris the author of the Observations : "Another instance in which s is
used a~ an Abbreviation without the least pretence for it: ... Doctrine of
a future STATE'S being taught; .. ·. equity of the Episcopal CHURCH'S
being . . . ." Lowth ... spoke of expressions like "the Rule's being observed ..." and "it's being disregarded" as "anomolies to be rooted out."
Priestly admits either possessive or accusative with the gerund. . . . Campbell . . . concludes formally "that the idiom in question ought not to
be entirely repudiated." Baker first stated a positive rule . .. ; Webster
is equally positive on this point, and we perhaps owe to him the dogma
77
that the possessive must invariably be . used in this construction.

In the nineteenth century, although the rule was becoming
quite firmly established in favor of the possessi~re case throu?"h tl~e
influence of Webster and his followers, Whitney wrote 111 his
grammar,
73

Quoted from a letter to the author from Low's Letter Service, Chicago, Illinois.

n Leonard, S. A., Doctrine of Correctness, pp. 199, 200 .

105

. · . the two constructions, of an objective case qualified by a present
participle and of a possessive qualifying an infinitive in ing, are to a certain
extent interchangeable; and the question sometimes arises as to which
should be preferred. There are cases where both are equally proper; but
even among good writers (and yet more among careless ones) the one
is occasionally found where more approved usage would favor the
other : thus,
pardon me blushing
the certainty of the old men interrupting him
the hope of society is in men caring for other things;
Where my blushing, tlie old man's interrupti1ig him, and men's caring would
doubtless be better.78

Whitney recogni zes the two uses; he admits the possibility of
either being (sic!) correct in a certain context, and he gives as the
only basis for the selection of the customary usage his feeling for
what was approved in his day. There is little doubt that me blushing is · a rare and unusual construction, chiefly objectionable because it attracts attention to itself; the other two examples, the
old man interrupting him and men caring are by no means unusual
and have considerable literary backing. Jespersen says,
I .. . here content myself with ·quoting a few instances of the new construction out of several hundreds which I have collected : "Wben we talk
of this man or that woman being no longer the same person" (Thackeray),
"besides the fact of those three being there, the drawbridge is kept up"
(A. Hope ), "When I think of this being the last time of seeing you"
(Miss Austen), "the possibility of such an effect being wrought by such
a cause" (Dickens), "he insisted upon the chamber carrying out his
policy" (Lecky ) , "I have not the least objection in life to a rogue being
hung" (Thackeray), "no man ever heard of opium leading into delirium
tremens" (DeQuincey), "the suffering arises simply from people not understanding this truism" (Ruskin) ,79

This last example from Ruskin is identical in form with Whitney's
last example, " The hope of . society is in men caring for other
things," of which he says "men's caring would doubtless be better."
It is not unreasonable to conclude that Whitney in making this
statement was expressing the nineteenth-century preference for
the possessive case without being fully aware of the exte1~ to
which the objective case w~s employed by writers of repute.
Jespersen concludes, "These examples will show that the construction is especially useful in those cases where for some
'f:s Whitney,

Essentials of English Grammar, 1877, p. 223.
Jespersen , Growtlr and Structure of t!te English Language, pp. 200, 201.

I,I
· :11

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

106

reason or other it is impossible to use the genitive case, but that '
it is aiso found where no such reason could be adduced." 80
In modern usage there can be recognized four distinct situations in which the choice of the objective or possessive case of the
substantive is governed in part by custom, and in part by the
exigencies of the construction. That no general rule can cover
the uses of the substantive with the gerund should be clear from
the enumeration below.
1. The pronoun immediately preceding the gerund. Example :
" Do you obj ect to his joining us?" Ordinarily the possessive case
is employed in this construction and may be considered standard.
J. Lesslie Hall says of this use, "Pronouns .... are nearly always
genitive in reputable authors." 81 Despite this general use of the
possessive, there are cases in speech at least in which the objective
is used for special emphasis in sentences where the pronoun is the
focus point of attention in the phrase. Such cases are, "What do
you think of him being elected?" "Can you picture me jumping
rope?" The objective case here is clearly a device. for emphasis,
for the force of the reference to the person represented by the
pronoun would be lost in "his being elected," "my jumping rope."
For this case then the statement of a rule should be: The pronoun
immediately preceding a gerund is usually in the possessive case,
except that in sentences where great emphasis on the pronoun is
desired the objective case may be used.
When this or that precede the gerund as in the sentence "Why
do you insist on this (or that) being done?" the possessive forms
would be so odd as to arouse wonder, and are virtually never used.
George Harris wrote in 1752 "This's being done would mark a
man of no education." B2 J. Lesslie Hall also notes these words as
"cases in which the possessive is rarely used." 88
2. The pronoun separated from the gerund by a modifying
phrase or clause. Example: "Have you heard of his, the thief's,
being captured?" This is a very rare construction and probably i5
found only in informal speech in cases where the antecedent of
the pronoun is not clear from the preceding context. It is governed by the same rule as case number 1.
"Loe. cit .

"Hall , J. Lesslie, English Usa~e . p . 138.
,. Leonard, S. A., op. cit., p. 126 .
.. Hall, J. Lesslie, op. cit. , p. 141.

GR.AMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

107

3. The noun immediately preceding the gerund. Example: "I
never heard of a woman (or woman's) being offended by flattery."
It is about this case that the controversy rages, and may long continue to do so since the literary and current usage is evenly divided. J. Lesslie Hall presents a list of 53 authorities, including
217 cases, from the Rolls of Parliament, 1435-1437; to Sir Henry
Taylor, who used the objective case (without 's ) of the noun before the gerund. But a similar list of 54 authorities, including 231
cases, from Milton t.o Huxley shows that the genitive (with 's)
is quite as widely used. He concludes with,
Some interesting deductions can be drawn from the foregoing statistics:
(1) The form without 's is older than the other, as we have already
seen from the authorities.
(2 ) The two forms are about numerically even ( 231 to 217) in the
literature read.
(3 ) Both forms are used by a large number of authors . . . .
( 4) The objective form is much stronger than the other in some of the
best recent writers. . . .
Jespersen says that the objective ing is two hundred years old; but the
table proves that it goes back to 1435-1437, showing itself later in the writings of Sir Thomas Mor.e. It comes out pretty strongly in Daniel DeFoe,
who, in the tables, has nine objectives and four genitives. A hundred years
later Boswell uses the objective pretty frequently, though preferring
the genitive.s4

In the Leonard-Moffett study the sentence "What was the
reason for Bennett making that disturbance?" was ranked n~m­
ber 35 in a list of 102 items, with a general average rating of 2.5
on a scale of 4 points. The British lingui sts rated it 2.1, showing
as usual greater liberality in points of di vided usage.8 5
Professor Krapp says . "A noun or a pronoun modifying a gerund is by rule in the possessive case . . . . .But this rule frequently
fails of observance, both in written and in spoken English. It is
most likely to be observed when the word before the gerund names
a person . . . . "BG This last statement of Professor Krapp's is
surely open to question, inasmuch as a random collection of ex:
)
amples, like that of Hall for example, contain,s a fair number' of
· proper nouns as well as common nouns. " .. . it does not appear
" Hall , J. Lesslie, op, cit. , pp. 138 to 14 1.
" Leonard-Moffett. " L ~vel s i~ English Usage," .English Journal , May, 1927, p. 345 .
. '" Krapp, Comprehensive G111de t o Good E"gl1Sh, p. 643. ·

109

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

that Smith's is to any extent more general than barn's in the model
sentences at the head of this section." 87
It appears then, that a rule for this third case should read:
A noun immediately preceding a gerund may take the possessive
or the objective case. Both have adequate literary authority, with
a tendency toward the objective case appearing in recent writers.
4. The noun separated from the gerund by a modifying phrase
or clause. Examples: "Have you heard of old Smith, the police
chief, being retired?" "I have been told recently of the lad, who
was always a poor rider, taking a serious tumble." That this
case applies more to the proper noun than the common noun seems
reasonable from the fact that the proper noun more frequently
needs an appositional or non-restrictive modifier than does the
common noun. J. Lesslie Hall is the only writer who calls attention to this case, saying, "when modifying words, phrases, or
clauses intervene between the noun and the -ing form . . . in none
of these sentences can the 's be used." 88 For the fourth case the
· rule must apparently be : When the noun is separated from the
gerund by a modifying phrase or clause, it always takes the objective case.
In summary, it is clear from the evidence that no single rule .
such as, "The infinitive in -ing takes a possessive noun or pronoun," can adequately describe the substantive with the gerund.
We have seen that there are two cases in which the possessive case
is generally preferred, although for reasons of emphasis the objective may be used; a third situation in which the objective and
possessive cases have equal authority and frequency; and a fourth
instance in which the objective is invariably employed. The textbooks must be cognizant of all these situation in order to describe
adequately the usage of the substantive with the gerund.

The rules of the other texts are similar. Yet despite these rules
the use of the superlative is very common in speech and is by no
means unknown in writing. Hall says, "Polite conversation teems
with this locution; in fact, only the most careful confine themselves
to the other. Indeed, it would seem that the comparative degree
of adjectives is on the road to extinction except before than." ao
While this view may be a trifle extreme, there is sound literary
authority as well as current usage to defend the free use of the
superlative.
From Professor Leonard we learn that,

108

THE COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES

The rather common practice of using the superlative degree
of the adjective when speaking of two persons or things (sometimes described as the 'careless' practice) is uniformly condemned
by the school and college textbooks in English. "When comparing
two objects use the comparative degree (never the superlative) ." 89
Hall, J, Lesslie, op. cit., p. 143.
/bid., p . 141.
..
s
198
.. Raymond, C. H ., Essentials of English CompoS1t1on, 192 , p.
.

BT

88

No one in the eighteenth century seems to have taken as .a serious anomoly
the use of .the superlative for comparing two persons or things. Priestly says
it is "very common" and "very pardonable." Campbell concludes, "We say
rightly, This is the weaker of the two, or . . . the weakest of the two."
. . . Webster, in speaking of the "strongest of two" as "not so correct as
stronger" close to the place where he himself uses a superlative in this
fashion, is probably to be understood as satisfying only the decent claims
of reason and analogy. Certainly nobody in the eighteenth century, so far
as it was here explored, took this matter as a serious and irrefragable rule.91

Whitney observes the great frequency in the use of the
superlative with two: "The comparative degree strictly implies a
comparison between two objects, the superlative between more
than two. Yet . . . both in ordinary talk and in literature, it is
very common to speak of one of two things as being the longest,
although to say the longer is more accurate and more approved." 92
Professor Lounsbury also defends the superlative, saying that it
is "met with constantly in the best writers." 93 Curme notes that
the superlative of two ". . . still survives in popular and colloquial
speech, as in 'the smallest of the two.' Sometimes in the literary
language: 'They (i .e., the two squirrels) seemed to vie with one
another who should be most bold' (Thoreau) ."o4
From the statements and examples cited above it seems fair to
conclude that the textbook rule "When comparing two objects use
the comparative degree · (never the superlative)" is inaccurate with
regard to current usage. The superlative is sometimes used; not
only in colloquial speech where it is quite common, but in the published work of careful writers. Jesperson notes that "apart from
"° Hall , J. Lesslie, English Usage . p. 280.
Leonard, S. A. , Df>Ctrine of Correct ness. pp. 61, 75.
"Whitney, Essentials of English Grammar . p. 81.
u:r!Lounsbury, Histor." of the English La11g11age1 p. 252 .
"' Curme, Syntax, p. 504 .
01

-

...

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

set phrases like the lower lip and the upper end the natural tendency in modern English is to use the superlative everywhere." 0 r.
At any rate, we may conclude that the superlative of two is neither
inaccurate nor incorrect.
May such 'perfect' or 'complete' adjectives as dead, square,
round, equal, circular, etc., be compared? The textbooks declare
vehemently that they may not be compared, in words similar to
these: "A few adjectives denote qualities that cannot exist in
different deg~ees and hence they can neither be compared nor
modified by more and nwst." 96 (Query: Is not modification by
niore and tnost regular English comparison?) But the frequent
appearance of such phrases as "more dead than alive" "become
more equal" "squarer than . . . " "rounder than . . . " etc., leads
one to suspect that these adjectives are compared regularly in colloquial speech and at least sometimes in writing.
In the eighteenth century "The comparison of supposedly incomparable adjectives like chief, extreme, round. perfect, 'already
superlative in signification,' was seriously debated . . . Lowth admits that 'poetry is in possession of these . . . improper superlatives, and may be indulged in the use of them' . . . but even
this divagation from strict logic was the subject of serious concern."97
From his reading Hall reports a number of instances of these
'improper comparatives and superlatives.'

more round, most exact, whiter, etc., in modern English prose.
But such eminent contemporary scholars as Lounsbury, Kittredge,
and Curme all defend the usage. The latter says, "While we today
in general avoid pleonastic comparisons, we do not feel such forms
as more perfect, most perfect, deader, deadest, more unique, etc.
as pleonastic, since we have in mind degrees of approach to something perfect, dead, or unique."oo It seems almost beyond doubt
that with regard to the comparison of 'complete' adjectives, the
textbooks are still voicing the 'serious concern' of the eighteenth
century, in ignorance of , or in spite of, the accepted usage in
literature, early and current, the decisions of eminent linguists,
and the language habits of members of polite society. A language
rule opposed to such authority 'becomes futile and ridiculous.

110

The present writer has seen the following cases: Chiefest, seven times in
the King James Bible; four time's in Shakespeare, once in Marlowe,
Jeremy Taylor, Butler, Swift, Lamb, Emerson, Dean Trench, Phoebe Cary,
Saintsbury, and Tennyson. Mo1'e perfect, once in the Bible. Most unique,
once in Dr. Henry Van Dyke. Most favorite, once each in Dr. Johnson,
Irving, and Professor William Minto. Most principal, once in the Prayer
Book. Very unanimous, twice in Bishop Burnet. Deadest, once each in
Emerson and Browning. Correctest, once in Lamb. Extremest, twice in
Congreve. Most excellent and more excellent are found in the Bible; the
former certainly has wide vogue in polite society. Very excellent comes
out prominently in one classic passage in the Prayer Book Psalter.OS

It may be contended by some that since these examples are
drawn so largely from the diction of an older age, or from poetic
diction in the present, they do not give authority to the use of

THE INDEFINITE

IT

The rules restricting the use of it are harmfully misleading to
the inexperienced student. Such a rule as, "Do not use it without an antecedent except in impersonal expressions such as it
seems, it snows, it is warm," 100 arbitrarily cuts out many common
and useful constructions with it which may not be strictly included
under the term 'impersonal' as illustrated by the examples accompanying the rule. For example, the following rule from a
widely used text seems to contradict in practice what it and the
rule above express in theory. "A pronoun should refer definitely
to its antecedent. It is not enough that there should be a specific
antecedent for a pronoun. The reference should be so explicit that
no confusion is possible." 101 The word beginning the second
sentence is clearly an it without an antecedent, either specific or
general, and it is not part of an impersonal expression like it is
warm or it rains. Just exactly what is it, if not a pronoun without
an antecedent conventionally used with an accepted type of syntax?
The point to be stressed here is not that the rule-makers violated
their own rule, ·although if their statements are to be taken literally
such is .the case; but rather that it is frequently used without a
definite antecedent in constructions other than it rains, it is warm,
and is so commonly accepted in these constructions that careful
0

"'Jespersen, op . cit., p. 250.
.. Scott-Southworth, Book Two, 1925 , p. 151.
"Leonard, S. A., op. cit., p. 113.
••Hall, J. Lesslie, op. cit., pp. 28, 29.

111

° Curme,

100
101

op. cit., p. 504.
Raymond, 1925, p. 459 .
Thomas, Manchester, and Scott, 1925, p. 168.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOO[(S

rule-makers could use it unwittingly in the heart of a general rule
prohibiting it !
In point of fact, the use of it without an antecedent is a useful
and respectable construction in modern English, having roots far
back in the history of English. Professor Curme recognizes three
distinct uses fully established in English which he treats of at
some length.

It is of course quite evident that the authors of the rule, "A
pronoun should refer definitely to its antecedent," did not have in
mind, or purposely overlooked the uses of the indefinite it as a
matter apart from the rule they were propounding. The only
criticisim which can justly be upheld against this rule is that it is
too general in its wording and might thereby seriously mislead an
inexperienced teacher or literal-minded student. But with respect
to the rule, "Do not use it without an antecedent except in impersonal expressions, etc.," very severe criticism is in order. Surely
a textbook rule which arbitrarily excludes five or six standard
literary uses of the word it must be an indication of unjustifiable
over-sight on the part of the authors, or else must imply that they
gave a much wider interpretation to the word 'impersonal' than
is found in their own examples or in the examples of other
textbooks.
The sentence, "When a pupil does poor .work, it is not always
the fault of the teacher," is condemned by one text100 on the
grounds that it has no specific antecedent. Nevertheless there is
considerable defence for this construction, which is by no means
rare in current usage, on the basis that any word other than it
requires an awkward shift of subj ect conveniently avoided by the
use of it. Thus, "\Vhen a pupil does poor work, the teacher is not
always at fault," or, " When a pupil does poor work, the fault is
not always the teacher's," in either case the subject shifts from
'pupil' to 'teacher' or to 'fault,' whereas the it retains the subject
idea 'pupil's work' throughout the sentence. Though grammatically
anomolous this construction is both useful and prevalent.

112

Situation "it" as Subject . It is much used as subject to point to a
person or thing that is at first presented in only dim outlines by the
situation, but is often later identified by a predicate noun: "It's John, or
Anna, or the boys" . ... It is often a substitute for a noun obvious from
the situation or the context: "It is twenty miles to Chicago." 102 This use
of the pronoun it without an antecedent is exceedingly common in spoken
and written English and must be acknowledged to be standard English
by the most discriminating grammarian.
Impersonal "It". We now say "It rained yesterday," but in Gothic
. . . there was no it here. The verb had no subject at all ... . This it,
though containing no real meaning, serves the useful purpose of giving
the statement the outward form of an ordinary declarative sentence with
an expressed subject, thus making it possible to preserve under changed
conditions a useful old construction perfectly intact. . ..1oa Since this
usage is recognized by the textbooks, no further elaboration is here
necessary.
Anticipatory "It." When we desire to call especial attention to the
subject, we often withhold it for a time, causin g the feelin g oi su s pe r. c~
"It is useless, of no use, no use, no good your saying anything ." .
Anticipatory it is :ilso used to point to a following subject that clause or a
subject infinitive clause. "It is necessary that you exert yotirself" (or to
-exert yotirself) . . .. Anticipatory it ' is also used when it is desired to emphasize a predicate adjective or noun, provided, however, that the logical
subject is a singular noun denoting a lifeless thing, or is a clause . . . .
After the analogy of the emphatic predicate adjectives and nouns ... . it
has become common to make any noun, adverb, or adverbial phrase or
clause emphatic by converting it into an emphatic predicate introduced by
it is (or was) and followed by the subject of the sentence in the form of
a subject clause.104 Here is an abundance of uses for the indefinite it not
' included in the purely impersonal category, which are all recognized and
acceptable usages. To this list might be added another, the it in the
sentences, "He hoofed it home," "We footed it across the field s," in which
the it may be described as an indefinite object. The word it .w ithout any_
antecedent sometimes follows an intransitive verb as if it were .an object.
. · . . It might be regarded as a part of the verb itseJf.l05
''"Ibid., pp. 7, 8.
•••Ibid., pp. 11, 12.
111•

Cross, Fu11damentals in English, p. 390. ·

'""Clippinger, 1917, p . 193.

113

- ----- GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

CHAPTE R VI
PRESCRIPTIVE USAGE
The materials considered in this chapter are rather miscellaneous in character and have, therefore, not been organized into
specific categories. Inasmuch as they are frequently dealt with in
grammars and handbooks under the actual word concerned, as
for example "sit and set," "if or whether," they are arranged 111
this chapter in alphabetical order for easy reference. It may be objected that some items found here are more properly grammar or
syntax than mere usage, and should be placed in the preceding
chapters. If there be such, the reader's leniency is asked toward
the application of the term "usage" to this section. It is taken here
to include all those items of English speech which are considered
chiefly on the grounds of propriety rather than on the grounds
of grammatical accuracy or syntactical orderliness. Thus the
word set as applied to a setting hen is questioned not so much because it is a. transitive verb transferred to an intransitive function
as it is rebuked for being a vulgar or dialect use. With this
interpretation of the terrri "usage" it is believed that the following items are consistent.
A great deal of interesting material has been excluded from
this chapter, partly to avoid endless expansion, and partly because convincing evidence is still to be found for much of it. .
There are many words and phrases condemned by handbooks and
grammars which form part of the speech of nearly all cultivated
people, but which are still on precarious footing in literature. These
deserve the attention of every interested student of English for a
period of several years, to determine their approximate standing
and probable future. Some examples from the beginning of the
list follow: (words or phrases in italics are the questioned usages)
He treats every one alike; They shared the candy amo11g one another; A doctor is apt to be called out at any hour of the night ;
As long as the train is late, we may as well return home; We've
114

115

had an awfully good time; etc. 1 All these usages are objected to
by school texts; all of them, it is not unfair to say, are used in
good society by cultivated people. This apparent inconsistency
must be cleared up by more exact knowledge.
The usages found in the ensuing discussion are all clear-cut
matters for which objective evidence is available. While there always has been and probably always will be dispute over the interpretatioi1 of the facts concerning a given usage, the facts themselves should prove enlightening. They should be sufficient, at
least, to remove the textbooks' objections to items having the
double support of literary precedent and present currency.
ABOVE

AS AN

ADJECTIVE

Despite its frequent occurrence in writing (it is less common in speech because it is a writing device) the word above as
an adjective: "See the above statement"; or as a noun: "Refer to
the above," is the subject of criticism. One textbook says, " Above.
Undesirable in such use as the above state'1nent."2 The word 'undesirable' must imply that objection to the usage is based upon
one of the two grounds: either that above as an adjective or noun
is a neologism, with no standing in literature, or else an older form
now obsolescent. It is not difficult to prove that neithe+ contention
can be upheld.
Taking the secc:>nd first , we find the New English Dictiona:ry
giving the usage full sanction as follows:_; "By ellipsis of a pple.
as said, written, nie11tio11ed, above stands attributively, as 'above
explanation' ; or the noun also may be suppressed and above used
absolutely as 'the above will show,' etc." To this authority on
present usage may be added Hall, who defends it and cites examples.3 Inasmuch as a long list of examples, both past and present, is
attached to the following paragraph, none are offered here as additional support for the currency and acceptability of above as an
adjective or a noun.
With regard to the use of abm;e in literature, Reuben Steinbach offers overwhelming evidehce. In spite of its length his list
is worth citation as a whole because of its convincing presentation
of past and present uses of above. He says,
1

The entire list will be found in Appendix I, p. 162 .
'French . J. C .. 1924 , p. 344.
3 Hall, J. Lesslie, English Usage, p. 31.

116

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
I have seen "the above events" in Thackeray's Vanity Fair (Chap. XIV)
and "the above ceremony" (Chap. XXll); "the above resolutions" in
Dickens' The Pickwick Papers (Chap. I); "the above reflections" in George
Campbell's The Philosophy of Rhetoric (Book I, Chap. I) and "the above
passage" (Book I, Chap. II, Section III) ; "The above specimens will give
some idea . . . . " T. L . K. Oliphant's The Sources of Standard English
(1873), p. 180; "the above tabulations" in John Earle's English Prose
(1890), p . 39; "the above notes" in W. W. Skeat's Principles of English
Etym ology (Second Series, 1801, p . 258) ; "the above interjections" in
Henry Sweet's A New English Grammar (1900, Part I, p. 152 ); "the above
dictionaries" and "the above initial letters" in F . A. March's Thesaurus
Dictionary (see "Comparative View of Disputed Spellings") ; "the above
exposition" in Otto J espersen's Chapters on English (1918 ), p. 136; "the
above illustration" in Quiller-Couch's St11dies in Literature (Second Series,
1922, p . 144); "the above list" in Arnold Bennett's Literary Ta.ste (Chap.
XI); "the above list" in Robert Bridges O.n English Homophones (see
Society for P11re English. Tract II, p . 18) and "the above motives" in
"The Society's W:ork" (see Society for Pitre English, Tract XXI, p. S) ;
"the above words" and " the above list" in H. W. Fowler's Dictionary of
Modern English Usa.ge (see hybrid derivations) ; "the above propositions"
in Bertrand Russell's Philosophy (1927), p . 169, and "the above discussion,"
p . 185; and "the above remarks" in Gilbert Murray's The Classical Tradition in Poetry (1927), p . 104.
Included in this list of authors are the names of keen and profound students of the English language who do not scruple to use above as an
adjective. But it is needless to discu ss this matter further. All I wish to
say, in c8nclusion, is that Professor Henderson and the other rhetoricians
spoken of attest the weakness of their rule by breaking it themselves.4

It is needless to add further discussion. Any writer may feel
free at any time to use " the above statement," and with only
slightly less assurance, "The above will prove. . . ." In either
case he has the authority of scholars and standard literature.
AGGRAVATE

FOR

EXASPERATE

A textbook writer warns his readers, "distinguish between aggravate and exasperate." 5 That this distinction is not always observed, not only in colloquial speech but in writing, is fully established by reputable authorities. Professor Krapp says, "aggravating, adj., strictly should mean something that makes a bad situation
worse, .as in H ·is high temperature is an aggravating symptom. But
popularly and colloquially the adjective is used merely in the serise
of annoying or exasperati11g, as in an aggravat·ing child, Now isn't
•Steinbach, " On Usa~e in English," American Speech, Vol. IV, p. 161.
•Raymond, 1925, p. 455.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

117

th.at aggravating! · The past participle aggravated is used adjectivally in the same way, as in! was never so a.ggravated ·in my life."G
To Professor Krapp's terms " popularly and colloquially" should
be added, " not infrequent in literature." The New E nglish Dictio11ary acknowlcclgcs this usage thus: "To exasperate, incense, emLitter (a person); familiar , to provoke, arouse the evil feelings
of." Examples from the literature follow, two of which are here
cited: "If both were to aggravate her parents, as my brother and
sister do mine . . . " (Richardson); "Threats only serve to aggravate people in such cases" (Thackeray). Fitzedward Hall also
notes that W . D. Howells, in his I talia11 J our11eys, used aggrm:ate
for provoke. 7
Having before them the example, "That boy's mischievous behavior aggravates me," the judges of the Leonard~Moffett studyB
placed this usage 79th in a list of 102 items, with a general rating
of 3.2 on a scale of 4 points. This rating is low enough to exclude
it from the level of cultivated speech or writing, but it is interesting to discover two representative groups of judges who were
more liberal. The business men, numbering 24, rated it 2.5 , or
standard colloquial usage; and 50 teachers of English, members of
the English Council, rated it 2.7, or on the outer edge of standard
colloquial. The latter score is particul~rly significant, inasmuch as
groups of English teachers are in general very conservative in
questions of usage.
From all the evidence, then, there seems to be no justification
for condemning aggravate in the sense of exasperate without at
least some qualifying statements. This usage is widespread in
polite society, it has literary backing, it is recognized by the
New English Dictionary and Professor Krapp, and by two representative groups of American people. Insofar as the high school
is concerned, objection -to it might well be omitted, or subordinated
to a footnote. College textbooks should treat of it more fully,
pointing to it as one of the many examples for the exercise of taste
rather than arbitrary 'correctness.'
·

° Kra pp,
7

8

Com prehensive Guide to Good E"glisli , p . 24 .
Hall , Fitzedward , R ecent Exemplifications of False Philologv. p . 106.
Leonard-Moffett , 11 Leve1s in English Usage," English Journal , ·1'1ay, 192 7, p. 355.

118

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

AND WITH THE INFINITIVE .
Several textbook writers object to the construction employing
and to join two verbs, the second of which is usually called an
infinitive. One text says, for example, "Come to see n1e, Try to do
your best, are better English than Conie and see me, Try and do
your best; though they sound rather stiff and formal in ordinary
convention."9 These writers make use of the unfortunate term
"better English" as though the construction with and were slightly
off color, or in bad repute. As a matter of fact, the construction
with and is in excellent repute; it has been employed by many
careful writers of the past, and is frequent in the literature and
cultivated speech of today. These examples from the literature
show clearly that it has a long history and is not "inferior English."
"At least try and teach the erring soul" (Milton) ; "Do go to his
house, and thank him." (Johnson) ; "to try and soften his father's
anger," "to try and choose your lot" (Eliot) ; "How serious a matter it is to try and resist, {had ample opportunity of experiencing"
(Matthew Arnold); "To try and teach people how to live"
(Froude).
Contemporary students of language endorse this usage as standard English. The New English Dictionary · says, "And. 10. Connecting two verbs the latter of which would logically be in the
infinitive, especially after go, come, send, try." Professor Krapp
observes, "The construction is oc~asionally found in lighter literary style and is well established in cultivated colloquial use." 10
One is tempted to ask whether Professor Krapp would assign the
examples cited above to the "lighter literary style" of Milton,
Johnson, George Eliot, or Matthew Arnold. Hall lists a number of
authorities, and adds; "Try and is used several times in Otto Jespersen's books. How can the locution be called a colloquialism
with such support in literature ?" 11 Professor Curme lists this
use as a form of parataxis, saying, "Coordination often indicates
a close relation between two words or two propositions, the context frequently showing clearly that one of these is subordinate to
the other: . . . "You should try and be reasonable' ( == to be
reasonable,' an abridged infiniti ve clause in the object relation).
•Scott-Southworth. Book Two, 19 25 . p. 213.
10 Krapp, Comprehensive Guide to Good English, p . 40.
11 Hall , J. Lesslie, English Usage . p. 309.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

119

'You will come and see tts, won't you? (= to see 11.s, an abridged
.
_adverbial infinitive clause ,of purpose) ." 12
While it may be concluded with full justification that the construction with and followed by a verb in parallel constructi on is
standard, fully acceptable English, especially when the verb is
try, go, send, co·me, and the like, there is another use of and
limited to the lighter forms of speech. It appears in such expressions as " Don't go and do it now!" "He went and hit me"
in which the first verb is nothing more than a loose form ~f
intensifier. This construction, although very common in popular
speech, must be clearly distinguished from the regular and construction in which the intensifier stands in a modifying relationship to the first verb. Notwithstanding the similarity in appearance and syntax, they are quite different in degree of social
standing.
AT

OR

IN

A rather finely drawn distinction is urged for the preposition
used to describe the termination of a journey. "When traveling,
we say that we arrive al a small town, but in a large city."lS
Aside from the fact that strict adherence to such a rule would lead
inevitably to the question " How large must the city be to be entitled to the preposition in," this rule preserts a distinction rarely
observed by cultivated adults to the atte;1tion of beginners in
language. Such matters have no place as definite rules in a school
text. L. P. Smith says of this usage, "The general rule is that we
for large cities and capitals, at for smaller places. There is,
use
however, a notable exception: we commonly use in rath~r than
at even for a small place if we ourselves are there, prob~bly because then it bulks more largely in our imagination." H

in

BECAUSE AFTER REASON
The New English Dictionary defines the word because" with
the meaning of tha.t as "Obsolete. Common in dialects," but it is
not clear that the writers had in mind the recently developed construction "The reason why he spoke was because he had to." If
n Curme. Synta.t , p. 171.
13 Kimball. Book Two. 1911 . p. 35.
"Smith, L. P., "English Idioms." Tract No. XII , S.P. E. Oxford University Press,
1928, p, s.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

they did refer to this use, the term 'dialects' will have to include
cultivated as well as uncultivated levels, for "the reason . . . was
because . . . " . is very frequent today in polite conversation, public address, and good writing. Professor Krapp says of this use
of because "in crude English pleonastically after reason," n; but
as the date of publication of his Guide is 1927, and the writing
probably antedated that by a year or so, no doubt the usage was
less common and prominent then than now.
One text says, "Examine the following incorrect sentence:
'His excuse for remaining at home was because he was ill .' The
dependent clause is a substantive clause used as subjective complement of the word excuse ; therefore it should not have the form of
an adverbial clause." 16 This advice is grammatically sound, but
when an idiom like thi s establishes itself , grammar must yield.
That the idiom is fairly well established in current use is based
on the following evidence. The writer has heard it recently in
public addresses by Stuart Chase, the noted writer and lecturer,
and Professor Curme, the distinguished scholar and linguist, and
in others of less note. He has collected these examples from
current writing: " . . . the chief reason why it seems so dismal
an absurdity is perhaps because it could only serve," etc., (Edith
Franklin Wyatt, in the New Republic); "I suppose that the reasun
we went to this church . . . was because it stood near our home."
(Clarence Day, Harp ers, December 1931); " . .. the reason Dickens is so much read in America is because he assailed them."
(Harris, L ife of B~rnard Shaw, 1931). No diligent search is required to add to these examples; they abound in current writing of
the better sort.
There is no need to force this usage upon those who by taste
or training find it objectionable. They may continue to avoid it.
But there is equally no need to condemn it in the writing of schoolchildren, who are reflecting in its use a natural and common idiom,
so far established as to be not eschewed by speakers and writers of
respectable attainments.

persons or things; that more than two must be preceded by among.
The rules are similar to this: ", . . correctness requires that
between be used when the object represents two persons or things,
and that among be used when the object represents more than two
persons or things." 17 The distinction made by these rules was first
insisted upon in the eighteenth century, though even then it was
felt to be . a formal rather than an actual distinction. "Johnson's
Dfrtionary says, 'B etween is properly used of two, and anwng of
more; but perhaps this accuracy is not always preserved.' It certainly was not in the title to Trusler's work, DistiJ1ctions br1Zt•el'l1
Words Esteemed Synonymous, for he distinguishes meticulously
between all the members of groups of as many as nine words .' ' 1 8
In the Leonard -Moffett report the sentence, "A treaty was concluded between the four powers" was placed 27th in a list of 102
items, with a rating of 2.3 on a scale of 4 points. This rating indicates that the judges felt it to be cultivated, informal English.
Il is interesting lo note, however. that the teachers of English
rated it 2.7, reflecting, no do11ht, the influence of the textbooks
which are very explicit in this instance. 19
The New English Dictionary is quite positive in its assertion
that, "In all senses, between has been from its earliest appearance,
extended to more than two. It is still the only word available to
express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually . . . " There arc many _examples, one of
which is added here, "There were six, who collected between them
lSs. , 4d." (Cowper).
.,
An interesting example is to be found in Whitney, who in describing the uses of the comperative and superlative degrees, says,
"The comparative degree strictly implies a comparison between
two objects, the superlative between more tha.ii two." 20
It is clear from the evidence that between has two legitimate
uses in modern English for which the present rules are inadequate.
The first use (and the .more common one) is that involving two
persons or things in which between denotes a division into· two ,. or
a position in space interior to the designated objects or persons :
"Divide the cake between Mary and John," "Sit between Mary and
John," "The bush was planted between the two trees." The second

120

BETWEEN

WITH MORE TH AN

Two

There is unanimous agreement in the textbooks that the preposition between may be used only when the object consists of two
"'Krapp, op. Cit., p. ·'15.
'"Clippinger, 19 17, pp. 445 , 446 .

Kirby and Carpenter, Book Eight, 1930, p. 323.
Leonard , Doctri ne of Correctness, p. 11 3.
"Leonard·Moffett, op. cit .. p. 353.
20 Whitney, Essential! of English Grammar, p . 87 .
17

18

121

---~--.--

122

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

use is that in which between denotes a distinction in several persons or objects considered individually: "The five diplomats
settled the question between them," "Distinguish carefully between
the five uses of the subjunctive"; the underlying psychology is
that of distinguishing between any two of a larger munber. On
the other hand, when a group of more than two is treated as a
group, or collectively, the preposition among is regularly used:
"Divide this among the members of your class," "Plant this a.m.ong
the shrubs." It is incorrect, therefore, to state arbitrarily that
between may never be used with more than two.
CAN

AND

MAY

The judges of the Leonard-Moffett study were far more liberal in their acceptance of the word ca11 used to denote permission
than are the textbook authors. The use of can in the sentence.
"Can I be excused from the class?" was rated 2.3 on a scale of
4 points by the American linguists. and 2.0 by the British linguists21
Either rating indicated clearly that in the minds of the judges this
use of can is 'cultivated' informal English and is fully acceptable
in the usual language of speech and writing. The schoolbooks, on
the other hand, insist firmly that can may never be used in asking
permission. Curiously enough, the text which devotes most space
to the correction of this 'error' employs it elsewhere in a model
exercise designed to stimulate children's writing. The writer says,
" . . . can is a greedy and aggressive verb. It gets into every
sentence in which it belongs, and it often crowds into sentences
in which may properly belongs. Therefore, many people use cali
where it should not be used, where it is not correctly used. Remember that can does not ask for nor give permsision; can is correctly concerned only with power or ability. Do you use the words
correctly ?" 22 But in spite of this warning can was permitted to
crowd into a sentence, "in which may properly belongs" in a compsition exercise which begins, "Say, Mary, why can't I come to
your old party" ?23 From the context it is perfectly clear that the
speaker lacks neither 'power' nor 'ability' to attend the party; it
is 'permission' which is denied. Yet according to the authors of
the book can "does not ask or give permission." Then why is
21 Ibid., p . 353.
"Kirby and Carpenter, Book Eight, 1930, p. 164.
,. i,pid., p. 232.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

123

can used in the opening sentence of a model exercise? Quite
clearly because it is customary usage and attracts no attention.
Compare it with the 'correct' form, "Say, Mary, why mayn't I
come to your old party?'' to discover how odd and unusual the
may form is. In polite usage, when the auxilliary comes first, as
in a question, there is a tendency to distinguish between may for
permission and can for ability. But when an interrogative particle
precedes, especially in a negative sentence, can't is vastly predominant over mayn't or may not, as in, "Why can't I go out tonight?" The distinction may be summed up more clearly by saying that while may and can in their simpler forms are fre<ptently
used discriminatingly, can't is largely preferred to express denial
of permission or ability.
Some interesting, though perhaps not conclusive, evidence is
furnished by the study of telephone conversations referred to
more fully in Chapter IV. 24 In this study the word can was used
396 times and can't 228 times, a total of 624 occurrences as compared with 60 uses of 111ay. ,~fayn ' t was not used at alJ.2 5 It is not
unfair to assume that even though the 60 times that may was used
might include all the situations in which permission was granted,
some of the 228 cases of can't were to deny permission, inasmuch
as mayn't was not used at all. In other words, it seems clear that
can't is employed regularly for may and can in negative contexts.

DIVED

OR

DOVE

The past tense dove of the verb to dive is "not in the best use,"
says one textbook. 26 Inasmuch as dove is widespread in popular
speech and is by no means unknown . in the drawing-room, it remains only to determine whether or not it has a place in literature. ·
Professor Krapp obviously prefers dii1ed, but says, dove also is
in permissable use. " 27 The New En.qlish Dictio11ar31 calls it "U. S.
and Eng. dialectal form," but quotes Hays, 1867, "The whole
herd . . . dove down with a tremendons splash." From the returns of the Leonard-Moffett study it appears that the usage is
far more acceptable in the United States than in Great Britain,
inasmuch as the American judges rated it 2.8 (on the outer edge
24 See p . 60.
25 French . Carter. and KoeniJC, "The Words and Sounds of Telephone Conversations,"
Bell Tel ephone System. :Monograph B·491 , June. 1930.
20 Scott-Southworth. Book Two, 1925. p . 252.
,. Krapp, Comprehensive Guide to Good English , p. 202 .

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

124

of acceptability) and the British judges rated it 3.8 (almost illiterate).2s Yet it occurs twice, not in conversation, in J. B.
Priestley's Good Companions. J. Lesslie Hall quotes John Earle
as saying, "The preterit dove of the verb dive survives not only
in the poetry of Longfellow but also in American prose." 29 Hall,
however, is not inclined to ~ccept the full value of this comment,
for he adds, "Earle's statement is rather apt to . mislead the student. . . . Dived is certainly supreme in polite society and in
literature, but dove has great vitality in 'popular talk. ' " 30
. If Hall's summary was true for the time in which he wrote
it, we must then conclude that the "vitality in popular talk" of
which he speaks is .responsible for its now greater frequency. It
is no longer true to say that dived is supreme in polite society and
in literature, for in many sections of the country dove is the normal
past tense for people of culture, and current writing, especially in
the literary periodicals, uses dove often enough to challenge the
supremacy of dived. As a matter of taste dived may be preferred,
but there is no doubt that dove is correct.
We may conclude with Professor Krapp that dived has been
the "conventionally 'correct' form, but the latter (dove), following
the analogy of drive, drove, ride, rode, etc., is a natural formation,
and, in spoken use at least, is perhaps more frequently heard than
the former." 31
DUE TO
The use of the phrase due to to introduce an adverbial modifier
1s much condemned, especially by writers of handbooks for college composition. Professor Krapp, who is generally inclined
toward the liberal side in discussions of this sort, says, "Often
incorrectly used as a conjunctive adverb (would not preposition
be better?) as in The battle ~as lost, due to the lack of aimwunition.
The better form would be The battle was lost, owing to the lack
of ammunition, or because of, etc." 32 The question arises, why
is owing to permissible in this construction while due to is not?
Th.e textbooks also agree in condemning d11.e to as follows :
Leonard-Moffctt, op. cit., p. 354 .
Hall, J. Lesslie, English Usage , p. 78.
Loe. cit.
"Krapp, Modern English , p. 292 .
., Krapp ,Comprehensive Guide to Good English, p. 210.
28

29

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

125

Due to is faulty in such use as: .Due to the rain the exercises were postponed. Let it agree with a noun, as in: the postponement was due to
rain.Sa
Due to .. . is used to introduce adjective phrases only.34

In an article entitled "The Dangling Participle Due," Professor Kenyon discusses at length the history and development of
this usage. Due, like owi11g is a participle. Both these words in
their earlier use modified substantives. But like other participles
they had a tendency to "dangle"; that is, to become detached from
a specific substantive and modify instead a phrase or a clause_a5
In this evolution the ·word owing has gone all the way, gaining
complete emancipation from participial use in the phrase owing to,
which is partly prepositional. It may therefore introduce an adverbial modifier with perfect impunity. Du.e to , on the other
hand, has lagged somewhat behind in this evolution, and is on that
account frowned upon in spite of the· parallel development of
owing to.
This adverbial-prepositional use of due is evidently widespread. But
its spread appears to have been recent; no dictionary I have seen mentions it. It is my impression that it is found rarely , if at all, in masters
of English style; but those so considered are usually conservative . .. .
Its frequency is certainly greater among the less educated, but it appears
to be rapidly working its way upward, for some highly respectable writers
admit it. It seems to be about equally common in America and England.3tl
Some of his examples are added here:
"The population of Pennsylvania inc~ased from 50,000 in 1730 to
more than 200,000 in 1763, due in largest part to the thousands of
Scotch Irish (etc.)" (Charles McLean Andrews ); "Due to the lack of
stress on the last syllable, the h-sound disappeared" (E. W. Burlingame ); "Due largely to the absence from the country of the Committee on Academic Freedom .. . its report has been delayed two
years" (Bulletin of American Association of University Professo rs ) ;
"Largely due to the literary activities of Alfred the Great, ... the
language of Wessex became accepted (etc.)" (George H. McKnight);
"Immigration ... from other parts of Brazil has been large, due to
the rubber excitement" (Colonel George Earl Church) ; "Suppose, for
example, that, due to one exigency or another, the lecturer has to
become a traveling salesman" (John B. Watson); "America, where
women began to predominate from pioneer times, du e to their scarcity
and greater demands" (Count Kcyscrling) ; "W}1cther du e to her
persistence, or to the fact that the official they saw was an old school

30

"French. 19 24. p. 345 .
"Raymond, 1925. p. 458.
"Cf. discussion of dangling modifiers in Chapter V, p. 99 .
38 Kenyon , ••The Dangling Parliciple Due.," American Spceclr, Vol. VI, p. 68 .

- - - 126

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
friend of J olyon's, they obtained permission for Holly to share the
single cabin" (John Galsworthy) . And on the brass tablet in front
of the Old State House, Philadelphia, is this: "Here the Continental
Congress sat from the date it convened . . . except when it sat in
Baltimore . .. due to the temporary occupation of Philadelphia by
the British army."
The article continues: "In recording the foregoing examples of the development and present use of due to as a preposition, I should like to make
my own position clear. I neither approve nor condemn its use. My speechfeeling is against it; I do not use it , and it always offenrls my grammatic al
prejudices. . . . On the other band I am forced to recognize the facts .
Due to as a preposition has traveled precisely the same path as the now
accepted owing to, . . . Undoubtedly it began with the less educated, where
it is slill most common; but so did hundreds oi changes in usage and pronunciation that have attained the best of standing . In fact, there is no
surer guarantee of permanence to a new language development that has
gained general currency than having a widespread basis in popular practice. Strong as is my own prejudice against the prepositional use of due to,
I greatly fear it has staked its claim and squatted in our midst alongside
of and in exact imitation of owing to, its aristocratic neighbor a1ic..I respected fellow-citizen.37

EACH OTHER; ONE ANOTHEH.
The grammarians of the schoolbooks insist upon a distinction
in meaning between each other and one a.nother, pointing out that
the first must be used for two only, and the second for more
than two. Such a distinction does not exist outside of textbooks,
for the common use of cultured people as well as the use of
standard authors over a long period of time is free from any distinction in meaning. Yet the texts say clearly: "Use each other
in speaking of two, and use one another in speaking of more
than two. " 88 Professor Krapp also follows tradition rather than
usage in this instance, saying, "each other, properly used as referring to only two ; for more than two the correct form is one
another."39 The New English Dictionary, on the other hand,
denies any distinction at the outset, saying, "each other: used as
a reciprocal pronoun in acc., <lat., or gen. case; equals one another.
Some examples from various sources show how free from
distinction literary usage has been in this matter. "The Church
and Christ congratulate one another" (The Canticles) ; "These
31 I bid. , p. 70.
"" Clippinger, 1917, p . 236.
" Krapp, op. cit., p. 212.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

127

two imparidised in one another's arms" (Milton); "Fowls that
live by blood eat not each other" (Trevisa) ; "These two were
great enemies to one another" (Addison); "Sixteen ministers,
who met weekly at each others' houses" (Dr. Johnson) ; "The
citizens of different states should know each others' characters"'
(Webster). Still more interesting is the use of both forms in
the same .s entence, meaning more. than two: "It is a bad thing
that men should hate each other ; but it is far worse that they
should contract the habit of cutting one ;mothers' throats without
hatred" (Macaulay).
Each other with more than two in the sentence. "The members
of that family often laugh at each other," v.-as p!aceJ 16th in a
list of 102 items with a rating of 2.0 by the judges of the LeonardMoffett inquiry. 4 o This rating means that it was considered full y
acceptable by more than 75 per cent of the judges; six in fact,
called it "literary or formal English."
\Vith such convincing eYidence from dictionaries, studies of
usage, and the literature itself that each other may be used interchangeably with 011e another, there is no justification whaten:r
for the textbook rules which try to make a distinction between
them. These rules can well be omitted from future textbooks.
EITHER, NEITHER,

wnH

MORE THAK

T;vo

By common custom eith er or 11cithrr is used when speaking
of two, and the phrases a.nyone, 'llnt one, or 11ot any one for more
than two. Accordi ng to the textbooks and some authorities the
words either and neither are strictly limited to the use with two,
and mav not be used correctly of more. So we find, "Either,
neither, .designates one of two persons or things, not one of three
or more,"41 and from Professor Krapp, "The pronouns either,
neither, are correctly used only when the choice is between two." 42
Nevertheless, e·i ther and n either are sometimes used of more
than two, and have fair literary authority for such use. The New
F,nglish. nirtio1101·y says, "either sometimes
each (of more than
two things) ( 1867, Howells, 'Just above the feet , at either of the
three corners is an exquisite female bust')." Richard Grant
White, the A merican purist and pedant, used either and neither in

=

•• Leonard·Moffett, op. cit., p. 353.
41 Raymond. 19 25, p. 459.
"Krapp, op. cit., p. ·217 .

128

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

his L if e and Genius of Shakespeare thus: "That he wrote the
plays that bear his name we know; but, except by inference, we do
not know the years in which either of them was first performed.
. . . Peasant, yeoman, artisan, tradesman, and gentleman could
then be distinguished from each other (sic!) almost as far as
they could be seen. Except in cases of unusual audacity, neither
presumed to wear the dress of his betters." 43
J . Lesslie Hall records having found eitlrer and neither with
more than two in Poe, Emerson, 0. W . Holmes, W. D . Whitney,
·c. Collins, H . W. Mabie, J . F . Genung, and John Earle. " Genung's
own rule ( either, to be used of two objects ; any 011 e of more than
two) is too strict for him to obey, because it is stricter than the
language itself."44 We may conclude with Hall that either and
neither, although generally employed with two, may occasionally
be used with more than two because the rules limiting these words
to use with two are stricter than actually observed usage. It is
proper to point out, however, that the use with more than two is
somewhat rare.
FURTHER, FARTHER
Four textbooks set up a distinction between the uses of
farth er and furth er by some such rule as this: "Careful writers
use farther of actual space, and further of degree." 45 \ Vhile there
is no doubt that some writers as a matter of taste have made this
distinction, there is also no evidence that the di stinction is so
universal in literature as to become regimented. Professor Leonard
found no reference to it in the eighteenth century other than that
in Johnson's Dfrtiona.ry, in which he allowed either use to both
words.4a This is a powerful argument from silence that no distinction was felt in the eighteenth century, a fact further supported
by some quotations to follow later. The nineteenth century evidently discovered and fostered the distinction between far ther and
furth er, although some of the best grammars, like Whitney's,
failed to mention it.
Professor Curme gives a very clear and sane description of
the uses of farth er arid fu rther in saying, " W e use far ther and
"I am indebted to Fitzedward Hall for these illustrati ons. See also Hodgson, E"ors
in the Use of English , p . 22 , for additional examples.
"Hall , J. Lesslie , English Usage, p . 86.
" French 1924, p. 345.
"Leonard, Doctrin e of Correctness , p. 289.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

129

furth er with the same local and temporal meaning, but furth er
has also the meanings additional, more extended, more; 'The cabin
stands on the farther (or furth er) side of the brook.' 'I shall be
back in three <lays at the farth est (or a,t the f iirthest) .' But:
furth er details; without furth er delay. 'After a f urther search, I
found her.' 'Have you anything fu rther (= more ) to say?' In
adverbial function farth er and furth er are used indiscriminately:
'You may go fa.rther (or fu rth er) and fare worse.' There is,
however, a decided . tendency to employ fiirther to express the
idea of additional, more extended , action : 'I shall be glad to
discuss the matter further with you.' " H But compare 'Do you
wish to press the matter farth er (or f iwther) ?' in which current
usage is about equally divided between the two forms.
Professor Krapp also points out the true distinction, saying
that " fa rth er (is) the comparative degree of far, with a variant
furth er in the sense of more f ar, more distant. But in the sense of
in addition, also, n·i ore, . . . the form f urther is the one usually
employed." 48 Another writer says, "Some teachers and grammarians make a distinction betw,~en the use of farther and fu rther.
.. . Usage does not support this distinction. The two forms seem
to be used interchangeably." 4 9
All the foregoing discussion may be summed up as follows :
farth ev and further may be used interchangeably in all meanings
but that of in addition, or more, in which further is preferred.
Some· such statement as this is recommended to textbook writers.
An interesting example of the reversal of the usual rules for
fm-th er and furth er occurs in Lane's translation of the Arabian
Nights (London, 1821) which he makes read, "Aladdin's mother
.pressed him no farther but left him at liberty to sit where he
pleased." In this sentence farth er clearly has the meaning of in ·
additio11, or more, a use customarily denied it. Two pages further
occurs " . . . as he had a mind to carry him f urther to execute his
design . . . " in which f urther clearly means nwre far in space.
There are several similar instances in the same work.
TI1e sanction given to the interchangeable use of fart her and
fu rther does not, however, extend to the phrase "all the farther"
in the sense of "as far as." While such sentences as, "This is all
41
Curme, Synta x, pp. 501, 502.
" Krapp, · op ., cit ., p. 239 .
" Cross, Fundam entals in English . p. 290.

130

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Some
.
. . old
. perfe c ts are use d exclusively
as real presents e « Lat
. Mof the
· la.nguages the so -called praeteritopraesentia
' · ""·
·
Odi
. . ., e. emin1
E ·' m the G 0 th omc
may
,
and
Gothic
wait
T
g.
ng
.
can,
meani
.
· · · · o express the perfectd .
ng compounds with have were then formed. I h
held, etc. In quite recent limes one of these
l,· r ave h riven, sung,
pure pr
t ( h
com ma 10ns as become a
'
.
esen . t us a new perfectopresent verb) ; I have ot
the retrospective element is quite absent m
. I' ve got no time
. g
(I ve
ul got) .

the farther the train goes," are extremely common in popular
speech, especially in the western part of the United States, this
locution has no standing in cultivated English, either spoken or
written. Usage may eventually make it an accepted idiom, but
that time has not yet arrived.
USES OF THE VERB

GET

1. The use of have got meaning to have or to possess. Despite
the very common use of have got or more particularly the construction 've got to signify simple possession in speech and writing, the textbooks object to it strongly on the grounds of logic
or 'correctness.' Thus one says, "The verb get means 'obtain'
and the verb have means 'possess.' Do not use these verbs together. When I say 'I have a book,' I mean that I have obtained
it [note the extreme confusion of words in this explanation in
which have is used in two entirely different senses, and obtain is
hopelessly confused with get and have!] ; therefore it is not only
unnecessary but actually wrong to say 'I have got a book.' »uo
The use of the words "actually wrong" is unfortunate, for it is
not difficult to prove that the linguistic process by which have got
comes to mean have or possess is sound and fully recognized, and
furthermore that have got has all the support in literature and
current usage that can be desired. All the reference materials
turned to in defence of have got in this section were written prior
to the textbook rule above which calls it "actually wrong."
The process by which a perfect tense comes to have present
meaning is described tersely by the N eiu English Dictionary and
more fully by Jespersen. Says the former, "The present tense of ·
have form a present of completed action, or present perfect. Here
in origin and form belongs I have got, colloquially used for I
have." In other words [ have got originally meant "having obtained (in the past) I now have (in the present)." But as present
possession the result of previous getting and present possession
detached from the idea of getting are for immediate purposes
scarcely distinguishable, it is quite natural that the frequently used
have got should fade sufficiently to be applied to either situation.
Jespersen calls it a pure present. Commenting upon the shifting
aspects of tense in certain words, he says,
"°Pearson and Kirchwey, 1928, p. 166.

131

·~~i~h

So much for scholarly exposition of the process by
have
got dca;1 m~an_ a present have. It remains to show that have got is
use t ms m literature and has support in current usage. Hall says,
Besides being recognized b B dl
K 1
by Hthe dfollowing
::d
omas oo , Carlyle Thackeray A H Cl
h
'
'
Ruskin Holmes Sir
T ' · · ou g • Gladstone, D . S. Mitchell,
'
'
enry ay 1or L Kellner D" k
If
cou_nt, have got should have some
and
names
gansm. Moreover, it is used too widely in polite society to be so

;~d

writ~rs
if

e;~akee~:e:,f :::u;ee:sp~:~~~:i~~c {;~~s
s;an~ing

'no/~ee~s~andedthe

;r:a~e~~!;

I "Moreo~er, the judges of the Leonard-Moffett study placed

iave got m. the . sentence ."I Iiave got my own opinion on that"
number 28 i.~ a Ii_st of 10i items, with a rating of 2.3, meanin full
acceptable
cultivated informal Eno-lish
. cl
.
"'
." 5 3 I nasmuc h. asg thesey
JU ges m:l~ded tl:e most competent lingui sts in America and
~reat Br'.tam, their opinion fully substantiates the claim that
"iave
·t · got is good current usage. It is evident that tl1 e s t at ement
t~ is n~t {only unne:e.ssary but actually wrong" is nothing more
anulmn ormed opinion. As such it has no place in a common
sc hoo textbook.
2. There is some dispute as to the correct past participle of
d
the verb get. Is the form gotten absolescent and out of
rent u
f
goo cursage, as most o the dictionaries say? May it be to! t d
all? The textbooks call gotten 'obsolescent ' 't111de . ebrla ,e at
I
cl'
•
sira e, no
onger use. ; o1~e ~ext specifically says, "Everyone should notice
that ~he third prmcipal part of get is got and not gotten. The form
ot is preferred by good writers; the older form gott en is no
onger_used by them. It has outlived its usefulness. The co
t
form is got."54
rrec

f

So. positive a statement as the foregoin g excludes ex cathedra
all . wnters who use the form gotten from the ranks of 'go d
wnters
Y et odd! y enough, the arch-purist of the nineteenth ceno
____
·' __
~~ J e~prrr en , Phi_losophy oJ Grammar, p. 270
.-,,H all , J. Lesslie. English Usage, p. 122 .
·
,. Leonard-Moffett. op. cit., p. 353 .
Kirby and Carpenter, Book Seven, 1930, p. I 76; Book Eight, p. 3 14.

- 132

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITYOF WISCONSIN

tury, Richard Grant White, although condemning almost everything that came to his attention, vigorously defended gotten by
saying, "Many persons abbreviate gotten into got," thus bringing
down on his head the wrath of Fitzedward Hall, 05 who opposed
gotten. But J . Lesslie Hall, after admitting his own earlier objection to gotten, cites from his studies a list of SO authors who used
gotten ranging from William Caxton to Sir Henry Taylor. In
America, though Webster's Dictionary of 1864 called it obsolescent, it was used by Poe, Hawthorne, Richard Grant White, .
W. D. Whitney, Sidney Lanier, and John Burroughs. "In polite
society in large parts of America, the longer form has wide vogue
in spite of some popular dictionaries." 56 There is every evidence
that gotten is still alive and flourishing in modern English on
both sides of the Atlantic, and that many 'good writers' use it
naturally and correctly.
3. The present writer feels a distinction between the uses of
got and gotten, however, which is different from that noted by
other writers on the subject. In the uses of the past participle with
have to imply simple possession or necessity, the form got seems to
be almost invariably selected. "I've got no time" ; " he's got to go";
"we've got the tickets." But in the sense qf fetch or obtain, or
with certain prepositions, gotten seems frequently preferred, as in,
"This book was gotten from the library" ; "Having gotten us up" ;
"The point was gotten over very clearly." This observation receives considerable support in the fact that for all the uses of
have with got quoted by Hall as meaning passession, have gott en
does not occur; on the other hand, in the quotation for gotten
alone; the meaning is always that of 'obtain,' 'secure,' or else 'move'
as in, "His right hand, and his holy arm, hath gotten him the victory" (King James Bible);" . . . so soon as we were gotten out of
hearing"; "The sun had now gotten much higher" (Stevenson).
If any rule for got and gotten is necessary , it ought to explain
clearly that for sentences in which the meaning of get is to obtain,
secure, or move, either got or gotten may be used as past participle;
when the meaning is that of possession got with some form of have
is invariably used.
" Hall, Fitzedward, Recent Exemplificatio11s of False Philology , p. 65.
"" Hall , J. Lesslie, ofJ. cit., pp. 111. 117. .

IF

FOR

133

WHETHER

May if be ~tsed to introduce a noun clause implying uncertainty
or doubt? Is 1t correct to say • " I do not k now ·1"f I1e can come?''
Two texts .answer definitely in the negative; "If should not be
~~eel ~.or whether." I don't know whether (not if) I can."Gi And
so, If. Do not :1se as synonymous with whether."58 Another
text does not men~1on the noun-clause use of if, but insists that
whether is used it must be followed by th e pIirase or not
whenever
·l
eit ~er expre~secl or implied. If the complementary phrase may be
omitted, ~s is _the _case when it is merely implied, on~ wonders
why the issue 1s raised at all.
_In the eighteen.th cent~ry Leonard found only one objection
to if ~or whether, m the dictionary of J. Johnson, 1763. Here it
was . hstec~ as a Scotticism in Hume's Pol-itical Discourses.5f!
. The h1~tory an~ authority of this usage are ably presented by
A._ J. F. Zieglschm1d, who calls to attention the linguistic relationship of E_nglish if to the German ob; cognate words, each originally
used to mtroduce conditional clauses or noun clauses of doubt.
In _Ger~nan the ob has become specialized to noun clauses wei 111
takmg its place in conditional clauses.
'
In identically
the Sam e way, E ngl"ish '··1 was ongmally
•·
.
used in these same
categories.
In •the course of time ' however • the use of t"f became so m·
t'
1
1mate Y assooated . with conditional clauses (contrary to the German
development) that 1t became in literary English largely restricted to th"1
For this reason the use of if in noun clauses see
·
ropnat e t o our " purists
·
·
·
ms map
Pt b
· d
. with idiosyncratic notions." The fact , h owever, h as
o_ e recogmze . that m spite of the£e teachings of these purists if is still
widely _used to mtro~uce noun clauses, as this old historic usage is deeply
rooted m natural feeling. The modern conjunction whether may of 0
be preferred in literary language.60
•
c urse,

categ~ry.

~

Co~cluding ~n article in which he shows that ' many writers of
:ules v10l~te

1

their own precepts, Reuben Steinbach says, "In endmg
· t out
I t 1e discussion of if .for whether ' I should like t o pom
t 1at e u1~hony_ should at t1111es determine one's choice between the
two con1unctJons. For example, the sentence, 'He was asked if he
knew when his friends would speak' reads more smooth! y, I
0' Raymond, 1925 , J> . 459.
1924, p . 345.

~ French,
00

L~on ard, ~- ~- , op. ci.t.,

Zieglscbm1d,

p. t 78.
If for Whether." America" Spe ech, Vol

v,

p . SO.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

134

think, than it would read if . whether were used after 'asked.' On
the other hand, the word if after 'knew' would clearly be less desirable than whether.
.
.
· "I have said enough to prove that in a sentence not mvolv1~g
the consideration of euphony, if may be used for whether to mtroduce a noun clause following the verbs see, ask, doubt, know,
wonder, or the like." 01
LIKE

AS A CONJUNCTION

The use of like as a conjunction is a usage on the border-1'.ne
of acceptability in American English. In spite of its com~Jarative
infrequency in literature, in spite of the solemn w~rnm~s of
grammarians and writers of handbooks on usage, and m ~p1te of
the active hostility of generations of school-teache~s, hke _has
firmly established itself in the speech of many sect1 ons o_f t~1e
United States, and, if we may judge from current dramatic ht~
erature, it is common in many parts of England. In thos: parts o
the United States where it is common, particularly the middle- and
far-western portions, college presidents, pu?lk lecturers, and leading clergymen-men and women of otherwise 1mp~ccable speecl:use like freely as a conjunction with no sens~ of .sm. The English
teachers of these sections either bow to the mev1tab'.e and grud_gingly admit the usage, or else persist in a never-endmg and futile
attack upon it.
Needless to say, the textbooks are unanimously_ op?osed to
·
·
l"k
t
epted usacre
1. e o ace
"' ' :<:avmg
- . 111 effect,
admitting the conJunctlon
like and unlike are incorrectly used as conJtmctlons. They
·
· · · ·· "~~ Inasshould be used as prepositions and not as con1uncuon~ ..
much as the authors of these texts are very largely residents of
the east coast, where the usage is less common, or have . ~een
trained in eastern institutions, this unanimity is not surp_r'.sm~ .
The recognition by t extbooks of local variations of acceptab1hty m
English ll"age is reserved for a later day. .
.
Although like as an isolated conjunct1on is not a recen_t use,
I k
and his predecessors, 1t was
having been employed 11 Y ~S ia espeare
.
usually considered an abridgment of like as and was . not ?b1ected
to. Professor Leonard records that like as a con1unct1on was
"Steinbach , "On Usage in E~glish." American Speech, Vol. IV, p. "161.
Kirby and Carpenter, op . crl., p. 237 .

02

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

135

"neither used nor mentioned in 18 C. grammars." 03 That it was
common in the nineteenth century, however, even creeping into
the literature, is witnessed by these examples collected by Hodgson:
"Bidding the customers like Queen Eleanor did Fair Rosmund" (Mayhew,
1864); "A timid nervous child like Martin was" (Ibid .); "And if each man
would only add his mite, like the pilgrim adds his stone to the heap in the
desert .. · .. " (Js. Bromfield, 1866); "A nation must laugh .. . like a satyr,
or like those bitter fisher women did in France . . . , or like we have
laughed under Punch's auspices for many years." (J . Hain Friswell, 1870) ;
" . .. the coin is produced like wine is produced in bottles . . ." (Bonamy
Price, 1869 ) ; "Then, with ingenuous vanity, and forgetting grammar in
gush , he (C. Dickens ) protests: 'Nobody will miss her like I shall.'
(Temple Bar, May, 1873) ."64

The writer has seen the conjunction like in the dialogue of recent
plays by Galsworthy, Shaw, Drinkwater, and P hilpotts. The attention of some British critics who are pleased to call l£ke a 'vulgar
Americanism' is directed to a study of the dialects of rural England
uncontaminated by contact with American vulgarity.
The conjunction like is discussed with unusual impartiality in
Professor Krapp's Modern English.. He says,
The use of like as a conjunction arises from the ellipsis of a fuller form,
like as, as in the verse in the Psalms, "Like as a father pitieth his children,"
etc. In ,the simplification of this double conjunction it happens that the
second half is the one which has most generally persisted and the one which
the formal !(rammarian would raise to the ' position of standard . But the
ellipsis of as, leaving like for the simplified conjunction, is just as natural
and 1usl as reasonable , and so we fi nd it in use side by side with as . . . .
A colloquialism like as a conjunction may be, but indefensible it certainly
is not. It is first of all a widespread custom of the speech, it has arisen
naturally and in the same way that as has, and unless one starts from the
a priori position that there is only one legitimate form of expression for
every idea m :;peech, it makes as str<>ng a bid for favor as the conjunction as.65

Elsewhere he adds. "For like as a conjunction both the spoken and
the written language supply evidence to aid him who should seek
to justify this particular form of English speech." 6 6 The present
writer however, has never seen this use in any of the books of
Professor Krapp which he has read. Professor Curme, after a
brief note on the older English like as, says, " The present tendency
••Leonard , S. A., op. cit. , p. 260 .
.. Hodgson, E"ors in the use of English, p. 11 8.
••Krapp, Modern English, p. 320 .
.. Krapp, The Knowledge of English, p. 180.

•1
-f
_ ,.

~ ·.

-

..

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

~
. i.·

liiiiiiiiiJ:
~
~

•-·
~

~l

.'

137

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

136

in colloquial and popular speech is to simplify these forms to
like; 'It looks like he was afraid .' " 6 i
To the linguistic student the present position of the conjunction like is extremely interesting. It is tremhling on the balancepoint of acceptability. It can neither be fully defended as standard
English, nor fully condemned. While from all current observations
it seems to be establishing itself more firmly e\·ery year, its ultimate position is still unpredictable. Since its 11se is still avoided
even bv the students of language who find cause to defend it, the
careful writer does well to be cautious of its use. But that it is
widely used in speech, and is finding its way into literature, no
one can deny. lt may be fully established by the time this discussion reaches the press.
MOST

FOR

ALMOST

"Most means a great number, or in a great degree-while
almost means nearlv or not quite. These words cannot be used
for each other."llS Yet despite this warning, which is repeated in
several other texts the word niost frequentl y occurs in speech and
sometimes in writing as a substitute fur a1111osl. The X C« ' L11glisli
Dictionary, although it calls nwst in this use "Obsolete except in
dialect." also adds. "It is doubtful whether this is not merel y an
aphetic form of almost: it is often written 'maist, 'most." K rnpp
aiso conceives of it as a clipped form as he writes it "most" adding,
"dialectal for rrlmost ."69 Tn the combinations 'lllost all.' 'most anv
one,' 'most everybody ,· especially in illitial positi ons. most h;is some
standing. That it cannot be freely subsliluleJ [or lU•most is seen
in such examples as, "He most won the prize," "John was most
the onlv one there," which are um1sual to the point of absurdity.
But in . "Most everyone has seen this picture," and "Most all of
my friends were older than I" the me of 111nsf may he tolerate(] if
not commended. Leonard sums up this use thus , " 'Most all' for
'almost all," though it has no dear dictionary backing, is never·
theless so common in informal speech among people of at least
average culture that it seems a µuin l vf 1'"1 ... 11Lr_y ,, .. .:-.~ r;,thG
extreme cultivation to object to it."iO While most for almost
•1

MYSE.l ,F

p . 252.

FOR

I, OR lVI [<,

A corres pondent Yoiccs hi s ob jection to 111ysclf 1n A111erican
Speech ti1us: " A layman .. . is particularl y distressed to see
you permit the ridiculous µractice that is in such very common
use of suhstituting 'mvself' for 'me' in such a sent en ce as the
one you give 'They invited my friends and myself' ; no one would
say. 'they invited myself .' "71
The1·e are two points of particular interest in this ext ract:
one is the admission o.f lhe greal currency u f lhe usage , aud the
other is the confusing of th e use of myself as sole object of a
verb with the use of myself as the second member of a compound
obj ect. As a matter of fact there are five distinct uses of myself
as the substitute for a personal pronoun. disregarding the reflexive uses, ranging in acceptability from absolescence to current
standard usage. They are:
1. Sole <;~bject r,f a verb. Example: "My«'lf wh en ,·oung did cagc rl ,·
" ( Fit zgerald). Archaic, poetic, not acceptfrequent docto r and saint .
abl e in current prose usage, thou gh good En gli sh in poetry.

2. Second n1cn1ber of a c0n1pound ;;ubjeLL E xan1 ple. "J ohn dnd
myself brought t he Yule log home ." Frequently hea rd , but not i ully enough

establisher! to v in recognition . Nevert heless it was fr eq uen tly used in •hi s
manner by Washington in his personal co rrespondence, in sentences lik ~
the follow ing:

"Froin Lhe mo1w:: nt 1\1rs. \'Vashii::!ton :ind n;ysdj adopt ed

the two youngest children. . . ."
3. After comparisons with than. Exampk: "Enough to make a better man than myself . .. run into madness." (Richardson). Acceptable,
informal usage, not at all rare in literature. Similarly after as: "No one
knew this as well as myself ."
4. Sole object of a
tains are the beginning
quite as acceptable in
course not be confused

verb or preposition. Example: "To myself, mounand the end of all natural scenery." (Ruskin) . Nol
current usage as number 5. ·(This use must of
with the simple reflexive as in "I read to myself.").

S. Th e second or lat er member oi a compou nd ob;ect of a Hrb or
preposition . Example: "H e .. . invited John Mlson and myself to visit
71

Curme. Syntax, pp. 282 , 283.

"IU mball , Book One, 1911 , p . 46.

.
.. Krapp Comprehensive Gttide to Good English , P· 398.
'•Leonard, S. A., "Usage Notes, " America n Speecli, Vol. IV

cannot be defended in formal lit erary style. there is no reason for
condemning it in elementary schoolbooks. It is at least common
enough to he permitted in spcPC'h and in the in formal writing of
children.

Amcriw n Spccdz, \'ol. Ir, µ. 252 .

138

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS
him for a day or two." (Lockhart, Life of Sir Walter Scott). This use is
fully established in literature and current English.

The textbooks make no effort to distinguish these various uses
of myself, condemning it altogether as a substitute for the personal pronoun. Two examples will serve to show their point
of view:
a. "In speaking of yourself with others never use the pronoun myself." 72 Note that this rule prohibits such a sentence as
"I gave a folder to all present, not omitting myself," a sentence
fully acceptable in literary usage.
b. "There is one misuse against which you should be warned.
It is seen in the following sentences: Father, mother, and myself
were all going. The teacher gave problems to John, Mary, and
myself."78 In this rule there is no attempt to distinguish between
the nominative and objective uses of myself, although in actual
usage there is much greater authority for the latter than for the
former. The rules in the other texts are similar. 74
The two uses of myself as a substitute for the personal pronoun which can be defended on the grounds of literary example
and current frequency are ( 1) in the nominative case in a comparison after than or as; ( 2) as the second or later member of a
compound object. Of the former the New English Dictio11ary
says, " . .. myself in this use now expresses no special emphasis,
being preferred to avoid the awkwardness of !." In other words,
it is fully acceptable Engish. Of the second usage it says, "In an
enumeration, when not occupying the first place, it does not now
express any special emphasis, being in this position commonly preferred to me." Examples are given from Layamon to Ruskin.
This too is acceptable English.
A further note on the use of myself as the second object of an
enumeration is found in the Leonard-Moffett study. The average
of all the judges for this usage in the sentence, "They invited
my friends and myself" was 2.4 on a scale of 4 points; the British
judges alone gave it 2.0, revealing the fact that the usage is more
firmly established in Great Britain than in the United States.
Nevertheless the general rating of 2.4 means that the American
,. Pearson and Kirchwey, 1928. p. 191.
· "Kirby and Carpenter, Book Eight, 1930, p. 27Z.
.
.
"See Kimball, Book Two, 1911 , p. 84 ; Brooks, 1911, p. 251; Lewis, and Hosie, 1916,
p. !lO; McFadden, 1919, p. 175 ; French, 1924, pp. 311, 345; Raymond, 1925, p. 232.

139

judges felt it to be well within the range of currently acceptable
English. 75
There is little doubt that this usage springs either from the
desire to avoid making a choice between I and me, or from the
psychological urge to avoid the bluntness of the first person
pronoun. I and 1ne in enumerations or comparisons are direct,
forceful, and subjective; myself in the same constructions permits an impersonal feeling, an objectifying of the self into the
group. It softens the intrusion of the ego; it is felt to be modest,
polite, and courteous. From all angles-literary authority, current
t'.tsage, and psychological need--myself as the objective in an
enumeration, or as the nominative after than or as is good English.
The textbooks must .acknowledge it and distinguish its uses.
PROVEN
The past participle proven is objectionable to many writers of
textbooks, who are perhaps influenced in this decision by the
common dictionaries which call proven 'archaic' or 'Scottish.' One
writer says, "Always . use proved. There is excellent linguistic
reason for objecting to proven," 16 but he fails to show what the
'excellent linguistic reason' is. The principal linguistic reason for
using or avoiding an expression is its standing in literature and
current speech, but one can be sure that the author quoted above
does not have this in mind. He refers, no doubt, to the fact that
since prove came into English from Latin probare through the Old
French prover it has no right to an Anglo-Saxon -n past participle
as though it were a native strong verb. There are two good answers
to such an objection: first, that native suffixes are frequently attached to foreign roots to form a useful word, as in the once
much disputed talented; second, that if proven has an honorable
history in English and some standing in current literature and
speech, a doubtful etymology cannot be urged against it.
The New English Dictionary recognizes proven, saying, "The
past participle proven, originally Scotch from prove, follows the
strong verbs; e.g.- cleave, cloven; weave, woven," and quotes several authors. Professor Lounsbury is a strong supporter of it,
concluding, "Some authors of repute employ it; others avoid it.
"Leonard-Moffet, op. cit., p. 355.
French, 1924 , p. 346.

1•

140

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

It is more than likely that it is destined to establish itself
permanently in the language of literature." 77 Hall records having
seen it "at least seven times in Tennyson's Idylls of the King and
twice in his Aylmer's Field .. . once in Huxley; twice in Kipling's serious verse; once in Fitz-Greene Halleck's poetry; once in
Miss Katherine Lee Bate's Religious Drama."78 He adds further,
"If one great author can establish a form, Tennyson has established proven. . . In America, proven has considerable vogue in
polite society and in the best journals."79
The present writer has noted two instances in a current journal
of high literary standing, H, a.rper1 s Magazine. In the issue for
Augst, 1931, appeared an advertisement for books published
"By the House of Harper" which began, "Proven-Books whose
various excellencies have raised them to honors, etc." In the
issue for October, 1931 , in an article by Max Eastman entitled,
"Poets Talking to Themselves" appears the sentence, " .. . if only
for having so specifically di'.spr01.1en the hard saying of Pascal."
It appears from the evidence that proven is accredited and acceptable. With long enough standing to be absolved from the
charge of being a neologism, it has been used freely by reputable
authors of the last half century, it is found regularly in current
writing of literary merit, and it is extremely common in speech.
No further defence is needed to admit it to the ranks of correct
usage.
REAL AND SURE AS ADVERBS
"The worst offenders," says a recent textbook, 80 "are sure and
real. They are used incorrectly to modify verbs, adjectives, and
adverbs instead of the adverbs reall;• and surely." It is scarcely
just to lump real and sure together in this way, for even as adverbs they vary greatly in use and acceptability. There is, for example, an appreciable difference in social level between "This pie
is sure good," and "This pie is real good." Moreover sure is frequently used in popular speech as a verb modifier: "We sure had
a good time," whereas real is never used this way. To do them
full justice, even in condemnation, they must be treated separately.
11 Lounsbury, The Standard of Usage in English, pp. 62-65 .
.,.. Hall, J. Lesslie, op. cit., pp. 227, 228.
••/bid. , p. 228.
'"Kirby and Carpenter, Book Eight, 1930, p. 200.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

141

Su.re was once .a "flat" adverb, and was commonly used as in
this example: "He is sure a prince of a royal courage," (George
Cavendish, cl. 1562, Life of Thonws Wolsey). But today, while it
is exceedingly common in popular speech, it is almost entirely
excluded from polite conversation and careful writing. In fact,
the avoidance of sure is one of the indications of cultivation in
speech;. its use is felt to be socially undesirable.
The position of real as the modifier of an adjective or adverb is
considerably higher. \Vhile it cannot be called a formal, polished
use, it is nevertheless frequently heard in professional and social
groups in such sentences as: "It was real good of you to come";
"Shall we have a real fine day tomorrow?"; "I want everyone to
be real quiet for a moment." That these uses are natural and
proper in informal cultivated speech can scarcely be denied.
In a sentence similar to the last above, "I will write real soon,"
a textbook author substitutes "really soon."81 This is utter nonsense. No one every says, "I will write really soon." We may say
"I will write soon; I will really write soon; I will write soon,
really," but never "I will write really soon." It simply is;1't
E nglish, grammar and grammarians notwithstanding. The more
one examines the original sentence, the more one becomes convinced that "I will write real soon," is by far the most natural and
expedite manner of expressing the idea.
Real as the modifier of another adverb in real quick, real soon,
real fast , and the like seems to be on the outer edge of acceptability.
As the modifier of an adjective, as in real good, real bad, real
strong, it is slightly less secure. Nevertheless, the child who is ,
instructed to purchase a bottle of "Carter's Real Black Fountain
Pen Jhk" 82 can scarcely be censured the next day for writing "a
real dark night" or even "a real good boy." He has the example
before him on his desk. · So does his teacher. It is quite conceivable
that forty million ink J:>0ttles may establish real as the modifier of
an adjective. It would be far less remarkable than the establishment of the verb to kodak from the name of a commercial product.
SIT AND SET; LIE AND LAy
The confusion of the parts of the verb sit and set, lie and lay
1s so widespread in English and is characteristic of speech levels
"French, 1924. p. 290.
.
" I think no one will insist that the manufacturers arr ·peaking of Real Black·Ink,
in which the adjective modHies a hyphenated noun.

-

142

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

so far above those in which other verb-form errors are common
that it may be considered a distinct problem. Many cultivated
people otherwise accurate in verb usage admit of considerable uncertainty · in the use of these verbs. Discrimination is furth er
confused by certain idiomatic exceptions which \\"ill be noted
later. The textbooks on the whole are rather clear in their presentation of the transitive and intransitive functions of these verbs ;
one only of the books examined for this study asserts arbitrarily
"Lay is transitive; lie is intransitive; set is a transitive verb; sit
is : intransitive." 88 The authors may claim with some justice that
these rules are for classroom purposes and that to add exceptions
and vagaries of usage to the otherwise clear-cut distinction would
result in a "confusion worse confounded." Yet so common and
correct an idiom as "the sun sets'" is ignored or tacitly condemned
by the rules as they stand. The matter is admittedly difficult, as
Greenough and Kittredge agree,
. . . it is not surprising that the distinction between sit and set, lie and lay
has broken down in vulgar English, and has not always maintained itself
. in literature. In the first half of the last century lay was pretty common
· for lie even In re~peetable authors,. (See examples below.) The sun still
sets, and it is excessively difficult (hardly desirable) for a poultry farmer
to speak of "a sitting hen."84

It will be interesting to note some of the literary confusion and
anomolous idioms. The most common by far is the substitution of
laid for lay (the past tense of l-ie ). It is not only heard daily in the
speech of cultivated people, but has appeared frequently enough in
literature to merit observation. For example,
"The Waterloo man was represented by a little child of three; a Martin of
course, who laid in the gutter" (Kingsley) ; "The look of immovable endurance which underlaid her expression" (Wilkie Collins) ; "I have laid
awake upon it" (Trollope); " ... I never took off my clothes, but laid
down in them wrapped in my cloak" (C. J. Matthews); "He again laid
down and addressed himself to sleep" (De Quincey). Less frequently the
confusion of lie and lay in the present tense occurs in literature. One recalls
Byron's "There let him lay"; G. W. Dasent is quoted by W. B. Todgson as
saying, "Dapple had to lay down on all fours before the lad could bestride
him."85 The use of lay intransitively in the idiom to lay in wait is recognized by the New English Dictionary thus: "lay, intransitive. To lay for ;
to set an ambush -or a trap for; to lie in wait." In nautical terminology
· ••Lewis and Hosie, ofJ. cit., p. 105 .
.. Greenough and Kittredge, Words and Their Ways in English Speech, p , 281.
••Hodgson, Errori in the Use of English, p. 37.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

143

occurs also the idiom "To lay out along" as in "The sailors laid out along
the yards."

Set as an intransitive verb has already been noted in connection with the "setting sun" and the ''setting hen." No textbook questions the correctness of "the sun sets," but one at least
makes an issue of the poultry idiom : "Supply the right form of
sit or set" in the sentences, "The dove is .. . ... .... on the eggs,"
''Hens ..... ..... on eggs."H 6 The child is of course bullied into
writing "The dove is sitting on the eggs," and "Hens sit on eggs,"
although he is fully conscious of the real distinction between sitti11g
(casually assuming a sitting position) and setting (purposefully
incubating eggs). If one concedes that the purpose of language
is to convey complete and accurate meaning, the idiom " the hen
sets" is vastly preferable to ''the hen sits."
The verb sit is predominantly intransitive, but it has one or two
transitive functions worthy of note. For example, there is a subtle
distinction between . "set the baby down" and "sit him up." The
more grammatical "set him up" is too general; it denotes any
change from a recumbant position. But "sit him up" means specifically "cause him to sit.' ' Similarly "set him here by me" lacks
the exactness of "sit him here by me.'' It. is unfortunate that
these distinctions, commonplaces of everyday speech, should be
tacitly or openly condemned by schoolbook rules. They should
be recognized and commended as types of accuracy far superior
to the merely formal accuracy of textbook definitions of 'transitive'
and 'intransitive' verbs.
The foregoing discussion is not a defence of an indiscriminate
confusion of the forms sit and set, l-ie and lay. These words in
their normal uses convey clear, distinct, and accurate meanings
which are regrettably obscured in much present-day speech. The
point the writer wishes to stress is that whenever any of these
words ordinarily transitive or intransitive, acquires a new, distinct, and accurate meaning by a shift in function from transitive
to intransitive or the reverse, the new use should be defined and
accredited instead of being condemned as a violation of purely
formal rules. To acknowledge it so is to show a commendable:
appreciation of the real purpose of language.
,. Scott-Southworth , Book One, 1925, p. 158.

---

144

I

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

THAN

-

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

AS A QUASI-PREPOSITION

The textbooks are firm in their insistence that than is always
a conjunction and must be followed by a clause or an ellipsis of a
clause. In particular they stress the fact that than may never be
used with different. One says, " . . . than and as are conjunctions and not prepositions."87 With more specific reference another adds, "Never use the word than after the word differe11t." S8
This latter rule overleaps itself inasmuch as there is a perfectly
good use of than after different in which than is
conjunction.
For example: "Is he different from his brother?" "He is much
more different than you would suppose." Attention is called to
this construction merely to point out once again the clanger of
ill-considered rules.
The real question at hand is whether or not than may be u:;ed
after different as a quasi-preposition, similar in use to the more
.common from. Curme has no use for this construction, dismissing
:it with brief comment: "Since different has the same meaning as
.other, many improperly employ than after it instead of the preposition froin: 'Your idea is different than (instead of the correct
from) mine.' " 89 But Krapp is inclined to a more tolerant view.

a

"The construction different than," he says, "though reprehended by the
authorities and avoided by careful writers, may nevertheless be found occasionally in writings of ·good standing. It is a convenient construction . .. ."90 In another place he says, "Modern purist opinion is very
firm against the use of different than, but as experienced a writer as H. G.
Wells uses it freely . He writes, for example, in one of his prefaces, that a
character' of his "sees things from a different angle than did Mr. Polly," and
a little later occurs the sentence, "They will have a different sort of
strategy than the disorganization of political parties and subtler methods
than sabotage schemes in cellars and the misdirection of honest discontent."01

It must be added, in fairness to Professor Krapp, that he feels
that the usage of one or two writers, even those as prominent as
H. G. Wells, does not establish a form in English. But we are
not dependent upon the usage of a few contemporaries. Different
. than is an old construction, occurring in the works of the bestknown English writers. Fitzeclward Hall notes this sentence in
st Raymond, op. cit ., p . 193.
"Kimball, op. cit .. p. 177.
•• Curme, Synta.< , p . 303 .
00 Krapp
Compreh ensive Guide to Good English, p. 195 .
11 Krapp: The Knowledge of English , p. 208.

-

145

DeQuincey, "And, apart from that objection, at this period, the
hasty unfolding of far differeut intellectual interests than such
as belong to mere literature. . . ." 92 Elsewhere he notes more
fully, "We find as the result of mere heedlessness, different than
in Addison, Steele, Defoe, Richardson, Coleman and Thornton,
Miss Burney, Coleridge, Mr. DeQuincey, Mr. Thackeray, and Dr.
N ewman." 03 Surely a most respectable list of. 'heedless' writers.
Further examples are offered by Hodgson: " . . . our English
poet . . . has given us a picture of a very different kind than
what Homer intended." (Fitzosborne, L etters) ; "The seventeenth
century evidently had a diff ere11t notion of books and women
than that which flourishes in the nineteenth" (Pall Mall Gazette.
August, 1867) ; "Provision is made for happiness of a quite diff erent nature than can be said to be made for misery" (W. Smith,
Gravenhiirst) .94 To which may be added another contemporary
use: ';See that you use no word in a different meaning than it was
used one hundred years ago" (Walter Hines Page, Letters).
It may be seen, then, that differe 11t than is no stranger in li.terature, past or present, and that .it is by no means .as reprehensible
as the textbook writers would have it. While there is little doubt
that different fro nt is the currently preferred form, diff ere'llt tha:ii
is a possible substitute to be found in reputable writers and pvlilt:
conversation. In such a sentence as, "My book is different from
yours," than is undoubtedly avoided by all but the less literate. But
in sentences requiring "from that which" to complete the comparison, "than" is a convenient short-cut often employed, as in the
sentence of Mr. Page above.
The case of the pronoun after than in comparisons is usually
nominative, although the accusative appears in popular speech
and older literature. On the whole, however, contemporary cultivated speech and writing is quite consistent in the use of the
nominative in all constructions but one: the relative pronoun
whoni. Although it is grammatically anomolous, usage has established beyond doubt the objective case of the reiative pronoun
after than. Professor Setzler says,
Than is regularly and properly a conjunction, but after than the relative
pronoun frequently takes the objective form . The reason for this is not
•• H'all , F.itzedwa rd, R ecent Exemplifications of False Philology. p. 21 . footnote.
'"Hall . F1tzedward, Modern English , p. 82.
.. Hodgson, op. cit., p. 114.

146

UNIVE~SITY

OF WISCONSIN

easily explained, but the practice is of
at least from the oft-quoted line of
higher sat." The use of this form for
occurs not only colloquially, but it is
language.95

long standing in English; it dates
Milton, "Satan than whom none
the nominative relative after than
also very frequent in the literary

Hall cites several examples antedating Milton to show that he
did not originate this construction.
Jeremy Taylor says, "and all this for man, than whom nothing could be
more miserable .. ." (Date 1650-51). Richard Hooker says, "Many men
there are, than whom nothing is more commendable than when they are
slngled" (Date, ante 1600). Sidney says, "so grave counsellors, as besides
many . . . than whom, (I think) that Realm never brought forth a more
accomplished judgment, more firmly builded upon vertue" (About 1581).
These passages alone prove that Milton did not originate this phrase,
though the fact that be used it in Paradise Lost helped no little in giving
it wide currency .96

Fitzedward Hall takes Cobbett to account for his condemnation of this construction. "Not unlike Mr. White's position regarding ill is that of Cobbet regarding than whom:

,.

"Cromwell, than whom no man was better skiJJed in artifice." A hundred
such phrases might be collected from Hume, Blackstone, and even from
Doctors Blair and Johnson . Yet they are bad grammar. In all such
cases who should be made use of; for it is nominative and not objective.

" .. and, therefore, we should write: 'Cromwell, than who no
man was better skilled in artifice.' That any one but Cobbett would
abide this, as English, is highly improbable; and how the expression, a quite classical one, which he discards can be justified grammatically, except by calling its than a preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and pleasure.'' 97
Enough has been written to show that than whoni is an ancient
and respectable form, fully established in English, though not
without occasional protest. Moreover, it persists untouched by the
more rigid custom of modern English demanding the nominative
after than which has practically driven out than him, than her, and
than them from literary and cultivated usage.
"Setzler, Advanced English Syntax, p. 79.
""Hall, J. Lesslie. English Usage. p . 295.
"'Hall, Fitzedward, R ece nt Exemplificatio<S af False P/iilo/og)', p. 84.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

147

WHOSE AS A NEUTER POSSESSIVE PRONOUN
Modern English sadly lacks a neuter possessive pronoun, to
supply which lack the masculine-feminine whose has been extended
to cover the meaning which must otherwise be expressed by of
which. Inasmuch as the latter phrase frequently necessitates an
awkward revision of the sentence in which it occurs, sometimes
obscuring r'ather than clarifying the meaning, the extension of
whose is highly commendable as a practical and sensible way out
of the difficulty. But eighteenth-century guardians of the language,
influenced by the restriction of who and whom to persons, raised
serious doubts about the propriety of whose in the neuter use, and
formulated objections which later become crystalized into rules.·
Thus Dr. Johnson says, "Whose is rather the poetical than the
regular genitive of which"; Bishop Lowth adds, "Whose is, by
some authors, made the possessive case of which . . . I think
improperly." 98 Priestly comments, "I do not think that the construction is generally pleasing." Homsey_is more explicit: "Which
properly speaking is indeclinable."09
·
These strictures became in time rules which have been copied
from book to book so that today we find statements like this .in
the current textbooks : "Whose is sometimes used also for the
possessive of which, but the form of which is better."1 00 Of which
is better only if it is either the superior manner of expressing
clearly the idea of neuter possession, or if it has decided preference
in the literature or current usage of English. The first reason
cannot be upheld; of which is frequently awkward and devious
where whose is clear and direct. In answer to the second reason
there is so much evidence avai lable that only the limits of space
preclude an overwhelming array. F . Hall sums up a long discussion with" . . . the use of whose for of which where the antecedent is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support
of high authorities for several hundred years."101 To this he
appends a long list of references. J. Lesslie Hall presents a l,ist oL
1,050 passages from 140 authors from Thomas Malory to W. W .
Skeat, covering a period of 400 years. He asks,
Are there any authors left to name? The results of this study of the neuter
whose amaze the present writer; be is fully prepared to endorse the state':,Hall, Fitzedward , R ecent Exem plifications of False Philology , p. 6.
1Leonard. S. A.. op. cit .. p, 66.
100 Kimball. op. cit., p. 126 .
1 0 1 Hall, Fitzedward , op. cit., p, 7.

- - - - - 148

-

...,

-

-

-

-

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
ment made _by Lounsbury that this whose is used by every author entitled to be called -an authority.102

In sharp contrast with the -textbook grammarians quoted above
as saying "of which is better English," is the statement of Curme:
In poetry and choice prose the old form is still the favorite : "a little white
building whose small windows were overgrown with creepers" (Galsworthy). The use of wllose for persons and things is the survival of older
usage which knew nothing of the dierentiation (of .whose and of whlch .)108

Professor Krapp also says, ' 1• • • whose has always been freely
used as the possessive of neuters." lO!
There is no support whatever to the claim that of which " is
-better" than whose. The history of the language, the usage of
reputable authors, both past and present, and the opinions of
qualified linguists all point conclusively to the fact that whose 1s
correct, acceptable, and in many instances "better" English.
,.. Hall, J. Lesslie, Enrlish Usage, p. 325.
,.,. Curme, Syntax , pp. 229, 230.
,.. Krapp, Comprehensive Guide to Good Enilish , p. 623 .

CHAPTER VII
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WRITING OF
TEXTBOOKS IN ENGLISH
It has been the purpose of this study to reveal in clear outline
two fundamental deficiencies of contemporary textbooks in grammar and composition. On the side of theory it has been shown in
Chapters II and III that the movement toward the correction and
regimentation of English which reached its height in the eighteenth
century, and which determined almost exclusively the language
theory and practice of the nineteenth century, still has a strong
influence upon the theories of language and usage in contemporary textbooks, only slightly modified by the late nineteenth-century
development of a science of linguistics. In 'theory, therefore, the
textbooks are deficient in cleaving to a traditional set of sta~dards
and attitudes to the neglect of contemporary linguistic principles.
On the side of practice it has been shown in Chapters IV, V,
and VI that the rules of the textbooks, supposedly descriptive of
the grammar, syntax, and usage of modern English, are in many .
instances partially or totally misrepresentative of current English
usage, urging distinctions not found in the language itself, or
prohibiting uses fully established in the language on the grounds
of logic, analogy, etymology, and other eighteenth-century criteria.
The textbooks are therefore deficient in practice, in that they fail
to represent accurately and faithfully modern English as it is actually used in speech and writing. Closely related to these two
chief faults is a third; namely, the failure to arouse in the
student an attitude toward English as a living, changing organism,
influencing and being itself influenced by every individual who
speaks and writes it. This attitude is more than the passive acceptance of a sound linguistic theory; it must be a vitalizing force
giving new life to the study of language. It is what Professor
Curme means when he says, "It will give a thrill to Englishspeaking students to discover that the English language does not
149

UNil'ERSITY OF WISCONSIN

150

belong to the school teacher but belongs to them and that its
future destiny will soon rest entirely in their hands. " 1
Scarcely necessary is it to repeat the statement that the charges
brought against the textbooks in English are preferred against
the111 as a group. No single text is thoroughly bad or entirely
free from censure. Moreover, the texts analyzed for this study
were selected chiefly on the basis of popularity; the nature of
their contents was unknown prior to the analysis. Except where
exact citation was demanded, references to particular texts we1·e
omitted, and the citations themselves were distributed among the
several texts as impartially ·as possible. Throughout the work the
spirit of impersonal, scholarly criticism has guided the task, in
the effort to present clearly a situation which needs intelligent
study and correction. The fact that certain textbooks provided the
basis for the study is merely a necessary concession to the limits o·f
time. The suggestions which follow are written in the same spirit,
in an earnest effort to clarify certain confused issues and to present conclusions based upon the study of textbooks in grammar and
composition as a group.
I.

RECOMMENDATIONS TOWARD A SOUND THEORY OF LANGUAGE
AND CORRECTNESS IN CURRENT TEXTBOOKS

1. The social aspects of language.
Edward Sapir defines language as "a purely human and noninstinctiye method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires
by means ' of a system of voluntarily produced symbols." 2
Language, in other words, is that group of auditory and motor
symbols which alone or in combination have by common conse;1t
attained a generalized meaning, and are therefore the medium of
exchange of ideas between man and his fellows. Language arose
to supply a social need; it is purely the product of society, and
its continuance rests solely upon its value to society. When a new
expressional need arises, the social group invents or adapts a
combination of symbols to form a tag for the idea; when an expressional need disappears, the social group neglects the tag for it
to the point of extinction. The only valid defence for the creation
or preservation of an idea-tag, or word, is utility ; if it is useful it
Curme, "The Split Infinitive/' American Speech, Vol. II , p. 34 2.
1 Sapir, Language, p. 7.

1

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

151

is good. Thus it is clearly seen that "the language" (as we generally speak of our own tongue) is the communication of ideas by
speech and hearing; the social group created and perpetuated a
spoken language for unknown centuries before writing was known.
To know about a language, then, we must go directly to the social
group to observe what is said and to determine by experience what
is meant by what is said. This is the heart of the language, and
the only valid source for the study of the language.
Written language., on the other hand, is at best a second-hand
form of language. It consists of symbols; conventions of visual
forms representative of conventions of auditory symbols. Except
in artificial phonetic transcriptions written language is not even accurate symbolism, for the symbols do not represent the sounds
they once were created to represent. It follows, then, that written
language cannot be considered "the language," nor can it be used
to determine the standards of language except with great caution,
both because it is inaccurate symbolism and because it is individual,
not social. Futhermore, in a very definite sense it is not only individual but partial, being only that part of the individual's speech
which he selects to write down.
The textbooks, however, rely almost exclusively upon wntmg
as " the language." Their examples and illustrations of good
English are all literary, drawn from books; their strictures against
faulty English are very largely directed toward the correct and
commonly used idioms of speech. If they were used exclusively
as manuals of writing, this criticism would not be valid, but they
are regularly used in the classroom as authorities for correctness in
all English, spoken or written, without distinction.
The English textbooks of the future, to sum up, must recognize the social nature of language, and English in particular, by
1. acknowledging that language is the tool of the social group,
2. granting that utility is the only valid basis for the creation or perpetuity

of a language form,
3. pointing out the part each individual speaker plays in the retardation
or acceleration of change,
4. regarding the written language in its proper light as the secondary and
partial representation of the real language.

2. The physiological and psychological aspects of language.
Man does not possess organs primarily designed for speech.
The production and modification of speech sounds is a group of

152

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

functions superimposed upon organs designed for breathing,
biting, swallowing, etc. It is obvious, therefore, that audible speech
is the product of, and is totally dependent upon, the physiological
structure of man. The science dealing with the production of
speech sounds is called phonetics, the knowledge of which is an
essential to the intelligent understanding of speech. The inflection and pronunciation of modern English are the products of
phonetic laws which have been operative since the dawn of
speech and which are no less operative today in determining the
English of the future . It follows, therefore, that no adequate description of modern English in a textbook, no matter how elementary, can be written without an implicit recognition of the phonetic
principles which have shaped the language we now use, and which
are no whit less active today in shaping the language of the future.
Moreover, since speech is the outward manifestation of man's
intellectual processes, it is also a psychological phenomenon. Speech
is not the random assemblage of words into meaningful relationships; it is largely the clothing of idea patterns with the appropriate words. Some patterns are so invariable that Jespersen
calls them formulas, e.g., how do you do? beg you.r pardon! etc. ;3
others are regular in outline but permit of variation in wording,
as in I ohn hit Mary. While an infinite variety of substitutions
may be made in such a sentence, the pattern remains unchanged.
In addition to these patterns and formulas, many other peculiarities of English syntax may be traced to psychological sources;
especially ellipsis, the omission of words supplied implicitly by the
context, a very conunon feature of modern English; parataxis,
the ranging of propositions side by side without connectives, the
relationship arising from contiguity; and anakoluthon, the abrupt
shift to a new construction before the first is. completed. This list
could be extended; the point to be made is that back of many
"errors" and "inaccuracies'' of the textbooks, condemned as being no part of an orderly system of grammar, lie these psychological phenomena, which not only explain but defend the questioned
usages. It is evident, therefore, that writers of texts must be ac. quainted with the psychological aspects of speech to avoid misleading and erroneous statements about modern English usage.
•·Jespersen , Philosophy of Grammar, p. 18 ff.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

153

3. The historical view of language.
Much of the earnest but misguided effort of the eighteenth and
early nineteenth centuries to correct and improve English according to a prior·i standards may be condoned when it is realized how
little of the historic background of English was known or understood. Eighteenth-century comments on the language of Chaucer
or even of Shakespeare reveal how little was known of the history
of English, and even less of how to interpret such facts as were
known. But there is no excuse for a similar ignorance .today.
Ling-uistic science, thoug-h in its infancy, has on the one hand assembled a body of facts concerning the English language so complete that it is possible to know with considerable accuracy what
the language was at any given period, and on the other hand has
developed a set of principles which enable the student to determine
the antecedent history for any linguistic fact. It is inconceivable,
therefore, that any one should attempt to describe modern English,
or much less to prescribe for it, without a thorough knowledge of
the facts of its history and the principles underlying the facts.
No phase of modern English can be understood or intelligently described without this essential perspective. Inflectional forms,
particularly where there are variants, forms of words, word doublets, idioms, pronunciations, dialect variants in sound and meaning,
all are the results of processes and developments of the past, and
can be understood and interpreted today only in the light of the
past. It is imperative, therefore, that the writer of a textbook in
English grammar should be thoroughly trained in the history of
English.
4. Standards in English.
Ever since Swift's proposal in 1712 for the foundation of an
English academy to "improve and ascertain the English tongue,"
there has been a succession of efforts to standardize English, or
at least to establish a standard dialect. But English has always
successfully eluded these efforts at formal standardization, though
it has been considerably affected by the normalizing influence of
the schools . . How the eighteenth-century theories of correctness
influenced the nineteenth-century school teaching, and to a considerable extent the twentieth, has been discussed in Chapter II. The
· task here is to outline a theory of correctness, or to define a standard, which will be linguistically sound and at the same time prac-

154

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

ticable for the use of textbooks. The necessity for regarding
English fro111 its social, physiological, psychological, and historical
aspects has already been urged. Any doctrine of correctness advanced, therefore, must be consistent with these principles. But it
must furthermore be simple, clear, and sufficiently definite to
form a working basis for classroom instruction.
The acceptance of a relative or changing standard of good
English in place of a positive or fixed standard in no way endangers
the integrity of English. One of the most remarkable periods in the
history of English is that from 1066 to 1362 when English was a
spoken language only with no standards at all, ignored and despised by the learned and ruling classes. Yet it lived triumphantly
through three centuries of eclipse and emerged vastly changed, but
in no sense weakened or debased . The reason for its victory lay
in the fact that it was an outward manifestation of the English people. So long as a language is the expression of the homely life of a
people, so long as it meets their domestic, social, and intellectual
needs, it is a sound language without corruption, no matter how it
may change. Corruption lies in divorcing language from the li fe
of the people, either through the limited intellectual range of ignorance or bigotry, or through the equally limited range of hyperurbanism and eclectic nicety. As long as the standard of good
English is based upon the language as it is spoken by Englishspeaking people as a whole, with due regard, of course, for group
characteristics of the English, Irish, Scotch, Americans, Canadians,
etc., there need be no fear of the corruption of the language. The
determination of such a standard of good English is our next
concern.
At the outset it must be acknowledged that there can be no
absolute, positive definition of correct English. Correct English is
an approximate term used to describe a series of evaluations of
usage dependent upon appropriateness, locality, social level, purpose, and other variables. It is really the composite of a group
of partial definitions, each of which favors some special aspect
of the whole. It will be helpful, therefore, to list the partial definitions to establish th~ fo1Ju<;iation upon which the inclusive
definition is to be built. Such definitions include:
1. Good English is present, living, useful English.

2. Good English is appropriate to the purpose for which it is spoken
or written.

155

3. Good English is comfortable English.
4. Good English is English suitable to the linguistic act in which it occurs.
5. Good English varies according to the occasion.
6. Good English must satisfy the inner sense of goodness of the speaker
or writer.
7. Good English is true to its inheritance and to the taste and sense and
blood and rhythm of life.
8. Good English is that form of speech normal to the speech-community
in whioh it is used.
9. Good English does not draw attention from the idea expressed to the
words used for the expression.
10. Good English, like good manners, has no standard more fi?<ed than the
ever-changing customs of society.

In the foregoing definitions three factors conspicuous in the
textbook definitions are entirely missing. They are ( 1) "reputability," the determination of good usage by reference to standard
authors; (2) "preservation,'' the obligation to defend and maintain language uses because they are traditional, or are felt to be ·
more elegant; ( 3) "literary,'' the identification of good usage with
formal, literary usage. Freed from the obligation to include these
factors, we may now construct an inclusive definition of good
English consistent with the language theories of the present
day, yet simple enough to serve as a guide to usage in the schoolroom. The following definition is offered in an earnest attempt to
meet the requirements. Good English is that form of speech which
is a.ppropriate to the pi~rpose of the speaker, true to the lam.guage
as it is, and comfortable to speaker and listener. It ·is th e product
of custom, neither cram,Ped by rule nor fre ed from all restraint;
it is never fixed, but changes with the organic life of the langu.age . .
It is at once apparent that the acceptance of this or a similar
definition of good English necessitates great changes in the presentation of usage in textbooks and in the classroom. Those
teachers accustomed to rule and authority, an absolute right and
wrong in language, will' find great difficulty in making the mental
readjustment imperative for a relative rather than an absolute
standard of usage. Much of the conventional teaching of grammar
and correctness will have to be vastly modified or discarded. There
will be much confusion and some distress. But eventually there
11~ Into the schools a new th(wry of good EngJj~h, so closely
will
knit with the language itself that the error, misrepresentation,

'(j

156

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

dogma, and inconsistencies of the present textbooks may never
again be repeate<l.

II.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HANDLING OF SPECIFIC
lTEl\1S IN CURRENT TEXTBOOKS

Several times in the-.course of this study it has been pointed out
that the textbooks in English language show a decided discrepancy
between theory and practice; that after establishing a theory of
language and a doctrine of correctness in usage they proceed to
do violence' to it in specific matters. The weight of tradition and
the tendency to copy specific rules from book to book are largely
responsible for this discrepancy. It is therefore earnestly recommended, for the selection and treatment of specific rules and examples in the textbooks of the future, that every item be viewed
objectively and impartially in the light of its history, its use in literature, its present utility, and its present levels of usage. Only by ·
some such re-evaluation of materials can the texts of the future
avoid the startling discrepancies which mar the texts of the
past and present.
The following recommendations are offered as a guide to the
process of re-evaluation of items, and are briefly illustrated by references to matters discussed more fully in the preceding chapters.
1. Whenever traditional grammatical classification ignores or
misrepresents current usage, it must be changed or expanded.
The treatment of tense is a point in question . Properly speaking, English
has but two tenses, present · and past. All other tense-forms are verb phrases,
constructed to express variations in the time-relationship. Because of the influence of Latin grammar, four of these phrases were selected to form tenses
parallel with the Latin tenses. This was a mere convention, however; there are
many other similar phrases just as truly representative of time as the traditional
future , perfect, past perfect, and future perfect. The ·present and past tenses
of the verbs mean, intend, expect, and the past tense 11sed are as surely auxilliarics of time as shall, will, have, had. This point is worthy of a diss~rlalion in
itself, but the following brief outline may serve for illustration.
The verb sing
Present time-I'm singing (rarely, I sin~)
Past time-I sang, or I used to sing, etc.
Future ti~I shall sing, or I will sing, or I intend to sing, or
(tomorrow) etc.

l

sing

157

Contin.u ous or indeterminate time-I sing, (sometimes sang after an
introductory past tense: 1 knew that she sang (
can sing! .
This is but the most brief mention of a subject demanding a full and
careful treatment under some heading such as "The expression of time-relationships in modern English."
Another example of the need for an expansion of the traditional categories
arises in the discussion of gender. In addition to the usual definitions of the
masculine feminine neuter and common genders, ment:on must be made
of the E~glish cust~m of rei erring to certain neuter objects as she: There she
goes; here she comes, of a train or ship; she's a grand olrl country (nalion. city ,
state, etc). Even though this phenomenon may be a special kind of personification , it is sufficiently common and idiomatic in the language t o merit mention
in the discussion of gender .

=

2. Proper reference to the history of English must accompany
the discussion of variant forms.
In the discussion of advert s, the failure to describe and account for the
"flat" adverbs, those descended from the Old English -e adverb end in g, is lo
leave unexplained many of the modern English adverb uses. When are loud,
soft, slow, quick adverbs? When and why does one use loudly, softly, slowly,
q 1tickly? What governs the choice? The writer has seen no textbook discussion
which covered these problems at all.
In similar manner the variant forms of the past tense of s.trong verbs must
be explained historically. Why doe~ one find in literature sang, sung; rang,
rnng, drank, drunk; and so metimes swang, swung, all used as past tense
forms? Why do we have ride, rode , ridden, but bite. bit, bitte11? Why are
not rid and bote also past tense forms? Language will begin lo live for children
who learn irregular verbs historically.

3. When custom has established two forms or usages on approximately equal standing, both must be presented.
Traditional rules frequently discriminate between u~ages of almost equal
standing in speech and writing, chiefly, it would seem , because the textbooks are committed to the naming of a "correct" form . There should be no
hesitation in listing alternate forms of speech custom when both are established.
Some examples under this suggestion are: (I) the "split" infinitive; an adverb
may be placed between the to and the infinitive of the verb at the discretion of
the writer. Custom sanctions both the insertion and the omission. (2) the
case of the noun or pronoun with a gerund; long established usage permits
either the possessive or objective case; in certain specific instances one or the
other case is generally preferred. (3) the use of the possessive case with inanimate objects. While it is true that the of phrase is more commonly used
with inanimate objects, the possessive case is not infrequent in present speech
and in the literature. In cases of choice like these the textbooks must list both
forms to be consistent with actual usage.

158

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

4. When current established usage conflicts with traditional
rules, the rules must be modified or discarded.
The following items, examples of current usage in conflict with traditional rules, have been discussed at length in previous chapters and need
only be mentioned here.
a. The uses of shall and will as future auxilli aries and in the expression of
determination etc.
b. The use of so and such as intensifying adverbs .
c. The use of the superlative degree in comparing two objects.
d. The use of the construction the reason . . . was because . . . .
e. I've got, meaning possession or compulsion.
f. Gotten as a past participle.
g. Proven as a past participle.

5. When current speech practices are modified or obliterating
traditional rules, the facts must be noted.
The student is preparing for the use of En glish in the future and is
at least a generation ahead of his teachers. He should be acquainted with the
actual changes now taking place in the language, that he may watch them
intelligently and be guided by his observation. Some changes of this sort are :
a. The use of data as a singular noun .
b. The establishment of it's me.
c. The extension of uses of the indefinite it.
d . The establishment of due to on a basis parallel with owing to .
e. The increasing use of the conjunction like.

6. When psychological .language habits bring about uses m
conflict with formal rules, the rules must be modified.
The principal example of this type is the matter of number agreement
in subjects and verbs, and in pronouns and antecedents. English has always
inclined toward an agreement with the implied number of the subject or
antecedent rather than with the formal number. The rules, on the other hand
insist upon agreement in form. The new textbooks must take into account th~
mental processes which have created and established violations of purely
formal agreement, and modify the rules accordingly.
' Similarly the position of the words only and all as modifiers is established
more by a language habit than by strict attention to formal modification.
Hence "I only had five dollars"; and " All toys do not smoke," are established
uses in English because they are customary patterns.
The "dangling" or isolate::! partkipial construction is another instance
of the Influence of habit upon syntax. Although the partii;ipiill plJnm is supposed to modify a subject immediately expressed, by a process similar to
ellipsis it is frequently made to modify a subject more or less implied but not
expressed. When the "dangling" construction too readily attaches itself to· the
wrong subject, it "is bad; but in all other cases it is at least permissable.

159

The use of between with more than two ; eithrr or neither with mor·e than
two; and the phrase amcng one another are further examples. Particular attention is called to the discussion in Chapter VI of the psychological factors involved in the use of myself as a substitute for I or me.

7. Levels of usage, the result of social standards, or of the
purpose and tone of the speaking and writing, must be distin~uish ed .

This principle has of course been observed in the textbooks, but the error
has been in the interpretation of the levels. The texts have assumed that only
formal, literary usage is correct ; that colloquial , popular, and dialectal uses are
to be discouraged,. It cannot be too firmly reileraled that "lhe language" consists principally of the colloquial, popular and dialect uses which the books
condemn, and that the formal, literary uses consist of specific selections for
specific purposes. In olher words, the texts mu st presenl bolh formal and in formal uses, with adequate discussion to enable the student to use each
intelligently and appropriately.
A few specific examples may be mentioned: (1) Who (or whom) in such
a sentence as "Wiho (or whom) did you invite?" (2) Aggravate or exasperate,
as in "That child aggravates (or exasperates) me." (3) Most or almost, as in
"Mosl (or almosl) all my friends go lo thal school." (4 ) Real, or some more
formal substitute, as in "We had a real good time," or "We had an excellent time ."

8. Fine distinctions, matters of taste or of personal predilection, may be profitably omitted.
There is little value in troubling young students with the distinction between at or in in referring to a city, as in "We arrived in Paris" or "We arrived
at Smalltown." Similarly the pretended . distinctions between farther and
ful';ther, one another and each other, and above as an adverb or adjective may
be omitted. The school child has enough to learn without being bothered by
doubtful distinctions of this sort.
GENERAL SUMMARY

The English language is the most precious social heritage of
English speaking peoples. The schools are institutions founded
by society for the purpose of passing on to succeeding generations
the social heritage of the people; in other words, the schools 'are
maintained by society to fit individuals to take their places in
the iiOdal group equipped to meet all the usual needs of life. Of
all these social needs, an adequate command or tli~ language and
an intelligent understanding of its nature are paramount. It is
the solemn obligation of the schools, therefore, to teach a form

160 •

UNIVERSITY. OF WISCONSIN

·

of English adequate for the needs of society, true to the facts of
the past and present, and quickened with a live, organic, and objective theory of language and usage.
The vast majority of instruction in English is conducted in
classes of twenty to forty students studying from the same textbook. Even when full allowance is made for the skill and inspiration of the individual teacher, the responsibility of the textbook,
and behind it its authors, is seen to be very great. That these
authors strive with earnestness and sincerity to meet the responsibility of their office is not doubted; but, that owing to various influences, prejudices, and, it must be admitted, deficiencies, they
have failed to measure up to their responsibility has been demonstrated by this study. The conclusions of this study, presented in
the form of recommendations, are here summarized and offered
in the hope that they may assist future writers of textbooks in
English to avoid repeating the mistakes and misconceptions of
the past.
I. Textbooks in English must reflect a sound linguistic theory
of the nature of language, with a full understanding of its social,
physiological, psychological and historical aspects .
II. Textbooks in English must reflect a theory of correctness
consistent with the actually observed usage of modern English,
free from prejudice and outworn tradition, and cognizant of the
uses and relative values of formal, informal, and popular levels
of speech.
III. In the treatment of specific items, textbooks in English
must avoid inconsistency in theory and practice by attention to
these principles.
1. Whenever traditional grammatical classification ignores or misrepresents
current usage, the classification must be changed or expanded.

2. Proper reference to the history of English must accompany the discussion of variant forms.

3. \Wien custom ha.s established two forms or usages on approximate!y
equal standing, both must be . presented .
4. When curre~t established usage conflicts with traditional rules, the rules
must be modified or discarded .
S. When current speech practices are modifying or obliterating traditional
rules, the facts must be note,d.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

161

6. When psychological language habits bring about uses in conflict with
formal rules, the rules must be modified.
7. Levels of usage, the result of social standards, or of the purpose and
tone of the speaking or writing, must be distinguished.
8. Fine distinctions, matters of taste or personal predilection, may be
profitably omitted.

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

APPENDIX I
The words and phrases which ar~ placed below have all been
objected to by one or more of the te~tbooks examined as forms
of 'incorrect' English. Judged by the standards for the formal ,
literary essay, many of them are undesirable for that kind of
writing, but as has been pointed out in Chapter III, the formal,
literary standard is not the only criterion of 'correctness.' Indeed,
. many of these uses are established beyond doubt in the informal
speech of cultivated people; many others are frequently heard, if
not fully approved; and none are definitely illiterate. The attempt
to eliminate them from the speech or informal writing of students,
even of those in college courses, is as futile as it is wrong. The
commendable attitude to take with regard to these Jess established
usages is one of interested inquiry, to determine to what extent
they are used, by what people, on what occasions. Only by a
number of such observations carefully kept by interested students
in various parts of the English speaking world can anyone arrive
at a proper estimate of the standing of the expressions.
The usages are listed in alphabetical order, with an illustrative
sentence as condemned by one or more textbooks.
alike. He treats everyone alike. (Clippinger, p. 502).
among. . . . among one another. (French, p. 308).
appreciate. I very much appreciate the favor you have done
me. (Raymond, p. 456).
apt. A doctor is apt to be called out at any hour of the night.
(Raymond, p. 453).
as long as. The expression as long as should not be u~eci as <l
conjunction. (Clippinger, p. 445).
awful. Means inspiring with awe. (Raymond, p. 457).
back of, in back of. We should not say back of the house. In
back of is also incorrect. (Kimball, II, p. 35).
balance. I read fifteen pages, but I was unable to read the
balance of the assignment. (Raymond, p. 553).
162

163

blame on. Blame on in blame a· thing on a person 1s faulty.
(French, p. 345).
directly. Directly I entered I saw something · was wrong.
(French, p. 304).
dying wish. Sir Bevidere fulfilled the dying wish of the king.
(Clippinger, p. 173).
enthuse .. Not yet reputable as a verb. (Clippinger, p. 508).
expect. When do yqu exR!!Ct tpey will <;ome? (Clippinger,
p. 59) .
fix. Collo.quial when U!)ed with the meaning to repa_ir. . ( Qip- .
pipger, p. 5Q8).
foot. Three feet wide, not three foot wide. (,S.<;ot~~~9.uthworth, p. 153).
..
guess. I guess so. Guess is wrong here. (Pearson-Kirchwey,
p. 107).
help but. Cannot help but see. (French, p. 308).
home. Use . at home after verbs expressing rest ; use home
after verbs expressing motion. (McFadden-Ferguson, p.

69) .
hung. They hung the man at five o'clock. (Thomas, Manchester, and Scott, p. 543).
love. I love apple pie. (Clippinger, p. 59).
nice. He spoke and acted nicer and more gentlemanly-like
than anyone I know. (Raymond, p. 453).
out. He looked out the window. (McFadden-Ferguson, p.

69).
over again. The work had to be done over again . (Clippinger,
p. 175).
providing. He wiJI remain providing he is needed. (Clippinger,
p. 60) :
raise. Next month I am going to have a raise in salary. (ScottSouthworth, p. 270).
·sewn. The woman had sewn all day. (Clippinger, p. 204).
stop. We stopped at the hotel two days. (Clippinger, p. 59). ·:
that. That, this, should not be used as an adverb. If he went
that far he must have reached the summit. (Raymond,
p. 463).
there. A void useless initial there. There are two kinds of
drawings which have to be made. (French , p. 140).

164

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

strong cups. The man drank three strong cups of coffee.
(Oippinger, p. 173).
very. Such expressions as " very pleased" "very disappointed"
are avoided by careful speakers and writers. (Scott-Southworth, p. 222).
ways. The old cat came with us a little ways. (Scott-Southworth, p. 270).
This list is not exhaustive, but it does illustrate the kind of
usages condemned on general principles, or on personal aversion,
by textbook writers. Each of the expressions is worthy of careful
study, to determine its history, its place in literature, and its standing in current usage.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES
For convenience in reference the books have been arranged in
groups in accordance with the nature of their contents. In some
cases one book was used in two or more categories, but the title
is not repeated in the bibliographies.
1.

CONTE MPORARY TEXTBOOKS IN GRA M MAR AND COMPOSITION
FORMING THE BASIS FOR THE ANALYSI S OF C U RR.ENT TEXTBOOKS IN THIS STUDY.

Brooks, Stratton D., E nglish Composition, Book One, Ameri~
can Book Company, New York, 1911.
Clippinger, Merle E., Written and Spoken English, Silver,
Burdett and Company, . Boston, 1917.
French, John C., I¥riting, Harcourt, Brace and Company,
New York, 1924.
Hyde, Mary F.,' Two Book Course in English, D. C. Health
and Company, Boston, 1900.
Kimball, Lillian G., Kimball's Elementary Engz.ish, American
Book Company, New York, 1911.
Kirby, T. J., and Carpenter, M. F., Pupil Activity E11glish
S.eries, Books Seven .and Eight, Hari::ourt, Brace and C9mpany, New York, 1930.
Lewis, W. D., and Hosie, J. F., Practical English for High
Schools, American Book Company, New York, 1916.
McFadden, E. B.,.and Ferguson, A. C., Language Series, Book
Three, Rand, McNally and Company, Chicago, 19li9.
Pearson, H. C., and Kirchwey, M. F ., N ew Essentials of
English, American Book Company, New York, 1928.
·
Raymond, C. H., Essentials of English Composition, The
Century Company, New York, 1925.
Scott, F . N., and Southworth, G. A., Lessons in English, ~ooks
one and Two, Benjamin H. Sanborn and Company, Chicago, 1925.
165

166

UNIVERSiTY OF WISCONSIN

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

Thomas, J. M., Manchester, F. A., and Scott, F. W., Composition for · College Students, The Macmillan Company, New
York, 1925.

2.

Fries, C. C., Teaching of the English Language, Thomas Nelson ·a nd Sons, New York, 1927.
Fries, C. C., "Rules of the Common School Grafmnars,"
P.M.L.A., March, 1927.
Leoilatd, S. A., Doctrine of Correctness i11 English Usage ,
1700-1800, University of Wisconsin Studies in Language
and. ,Literature, Madison, 1929.
Lounsbury; T. R., History of the English La11guage, New
· York, 1879.
Lyman, R. L., English Grammar in Amfrican Schools before
1850, U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 1921, No. 12,
Washington, D. C.
McKnight, George H., Modern. English in the Making, D.
Appleton and Company, New York, 1928.
Marsh, George P., Lectures 011 the English Lauguage, 1859.
Fourth edition, New York, 1874.
Whitney, W. D., Language, a11d the Study of Language, 1867.
Fifth edition, New York, 1872.
Wyld, H. C., English Philology in English Universities, Oxford, 1921.

GRAMMAR BOOKS OF THE EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH
CENTURIES CITED TO ILLUSTRATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
PRESCRIPTIVE lDEA.

Brown, Goold, Grammar of English Gra1mnars, New York,
1851.
Brown, Goold, The Institu.tes of English Grammar, Second edition, New York, 1825.
Bullion, Peter, Principles of English Grammar, New Edition,
New York, 1844.
Greene, Samuel S., First Lessons in Grammar, Philadelphia,
1848.
. Kirkham, Samuel, E nglish Graniinar in Familiar Lectures,
Eleventh Edition, Ro'Ch~ster, 1830.
Kittredge, G. L., and Farley, F. E., Advanced English Gram.
mar, New York, 1913.
. .Murray, Lin'dley, English Grammar Adapted to the Different
Classes of Learners, Third Edition, Albany, 1802. Two
Volume edition, New York, 1817.
Priestly, J., Rudinients of English Grammar, London, 1768.
Smith, Roswell, English Grammar on the Prodiicti·ve System,
Second Edition, Philadelphia, 1834.
Webster, Noah, Philosophical and Practical Grammar, New
Haven, 1807.
Wells, W. H., The Eleinifnts of English Grammar, Andover,
1848.
Whitney, W. D., Essentials of English Grammar, Boston.

-1877.
3.

BOOKS AND ARTICLES DEALING WITH HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF
THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.

Bryan, W. F., "Notes on the Founders of Prescriptive Gram. mar," Manley Aniiiversary Studies' in English Literature,
University of Chicago. Press, 1923.
Cross, E. A., Fimdamentals in English, The Matmillan Company, New York, 1926.

167

4.

BopKS AND ARTICLES DEALING PRIMARILY WITH QUESTIONS
OF ENGLISH USAGE.

Alford, Henry, A Plea. for the Queen's English, New York,

i872.
Bevier, Thyra Jane, "American Use of the Subjunctive,"
Anierican Speech, February, 193i.
Bridges, Robert, "On English Homophones," Society for Pure
E1iglisli, Tratt iI, London, 1919.
Burlington Elites, Burlington Railroad, December 20, 1926.
Canby, H. S., "Correctness," Saturday Review of Litera.ture,
Vol. V, p. 137.
Cutme, George 0., "The Split Infinitive," American Speech,
May, 1927.
Ellis, Havelock, The Dance of L ife, Boston, 1923.
French, N. R., and Carter, C. W. Jr., and Koenig, Walter,
The Words and Sounds of Telephone Conversations, Bell
Telephone System, Monograph B. -491, June, 1930.

168

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Fries, C. C., "The Expression of the Future," Language, Vol.
III, No. 2, June 1927.
Fries, C. C .. "The Periphrastic Future with Shall and Will in
Modern English," P.M.L.A., Vol. XL, No. 4.
Greenough, J .B., and Kittredge, G. L., f!Vords a11d Their Ways
in English Speech, The Macmillan Company, New York,

J
l

GRAMMAR AND USAGE IN TEXTBOOKS

Steinbach, Reuben, "On Usage in English," Anierica11 Speech,
Vol. IV, p. 161.
Steinbach, Reuben , "The Misrelated Constrnctions." .-/111 crica 11
Speech. Vol. V. p. 181.
Svartengren, P. Hilding, "Feminine Gender in Anglo-American,'' American Speech, December. 1927.
White, R. G., Words and Their Uses, 1870, New cclition,
New York, 1872.
Zieglschmid, A. J; Friederich, "If for Whether,'' American
Speech, Vol. V, p. 50.

1922.
Hall, Fitzedward, Modern English, New York, 1873.
Hall, Fitzedward, Rece11t Exemplifications of False Philology,
New York, 1872.
, Hall, J. Lesslie, E nylish Usage, Scott, Foresman and Company, Chicago, 1917.
Hodgson, W. B., Errors in the Use of English. Edinborough.
1889.
Kenyon, J. K., " The Dangling Participle Due," American
Speech, October, 1930.
Lambert, Mildred E., "Solidary Modification: Modes of
Predication,'' Anier.fran Speech, Vol. IV, p. 29.
Leonard, S. A., "Educational Quackery," Saturday Review of
Literature, March 23, 1929.
,
Leonard, S. A., " Shall and \Viii," A.1neriwn Sperch, Vol. IV,
p. 497.
Leonard, S. A., "Usage Notes," American Speech, Vol. IV,
~ 25Z

,

Leonard, S. A., and Moffett, H. Y., " Levels in English Usage,"
English Journal, May 1927.
Livingston, Arthur, "The Myth of Good English,'' q;(lntury
Magazine, August, 1925.
Lounsbury, T. R., Standard of Usage in English, ffarper
Brothers, 1908.
McKnight, George H., "Conservatism in American l?~~ch,''
Amerimn Speech, October 1925.
'
Moon, George Washington, The Dean's English, London• 1865.
Pooley, Robert C., Handbook of Ciirrent Ettylish Usag~ 1 Colorado State Teachers College Bulletin, June, 19301
Setzler, E. B., "Is the Subjunctive Disappearing?" (ln,gloSaxon, November, 1927;
Smith, L. P., "English Idioms," S.P.E. Tract No. XI/, London, 1923.

169

5.

CONTEMPORARY AUTHORITIES lN THE FIELDS OF LANGt'AGE
STUDY AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN PARTICULAR .

Curme, George 0., Syntax, D. C. Heath and Company , Boston, 1931.
Krapp, G. P., Comprehensive Guide to Good English, Rand
McNally and Company, Chicago, 1927.
Krapp, G. P ., The Knowledge of English, Henry Hoit and
Company, New York, 1927.
Krapp, G. P., Modern E11gli.sh. Charles Scribner's Sons. New
York. 1909.
Jespersen, Otto, Growth and Structure of the English Language, D. Appleton and Company, New York. 1929,
Jespersen, Otto, I'hilosophy uf Grwmmur, Hemy H ult anJ
Company, New York, 1924.
Sapir, Edward, Language, Harcourt Brace and Company, New
York. 1921.

.,·

INDEX
have got, 45, 130
hard, 64
help but, 163
her, 68, 73ff
him, 73ff
home, 163
hung, 163

INDEX
This index contains only the words, phrases, and grammatical terms men tioned or dealt with from ~he point of view of usage. For an analysis of the
chapters the re11der is referred t.o tl,le t~ble of corten~s.
above, 45, 115
accustomed, 54
'-adjective, 21, 108
"adverb, 64
aggravate, 45, 116
agreement, 7.8, .l;!S
ain't, 38
alike, 162
"all the farther", 129
al,u mnus, 6.7
among, 162
anakoluthon, 152
and, 45, 118
anybody, 8Sff
anyone, 8Sff
appreciate, 162
apt, 45, 162
as long as, 162
at, 119
athletics, 67
awful, 162
bad, 21, 65
back of, 162
balance, 163
because, 119
began, 55
between, 120
blame on, 163
can, 45, 122
case of nouns, 69, 104
collective nouns, 83
come, 59
comparison of adjectives, 108

I, 70ff
if, 45, 62ff, 114, 133
in, 119
indexes, 67
infinitive, 95ff
interrogative pronoun, 74ff
it, ll!ff

data, 67
dangling ipodiP,ers, 99ff
definitions of good English, 153ff
different than, 144
directly, 163
i;!oµbJe nega_tjve, 93
dove, 123
drunk, 55
due to, 124
dyi.ng wish, 163

lie, Jay, 141 ·
like, 134
links, 67
localisms, .42
loud, 64
love, 163
mathematics, 67

each other, 45, 126
either; 88, 12 7
ellipsis, IS 2
enthuse, 163
everybody, 85ff
everyone, 85ff
expect, 163

may, 122
me, 70ff
measles, 67
memorandums, 67
most, 136
myself, 45, 137ff

fast, 64
,fartper, . further, 128
fix, ,42, 163
foot, 163
future tense, 53, 56ff
gender, 68
genuses, 67
gerund, 99, 104
get, 130
gnomic preterit, 53
go, 59
god, 38 footnote
good, 21, 38
got, 42, 45, 130
gotten, 42, 131
grammar, 52ff
guess, 163

-

neither, 45, 88, 127
news, 67
nice, 16.3
nor, 81
not all, 90ff
noun, 66
case, 69, 104
number, 66
gender, 68
nouns of quantity, 84
of, 69
one another, 126
one's, 45
only, 45, 88££

out, 163
over again, 163

#

para·taxis, 152
participle, 9<l
pasl tense , 54
physics, 67
plural of noun, 66ff
politics, 67
possessive, 69, 104
present tense, 53
pronoun, 70ff
agreement, 85
with gerund, 104
proven, 42, 45, 139
providing, 42, 45, 163
raise, 163
140
relative pronoun, i6
real~

sank, 55
sang, 55
sewn, 163
shall, 38, 52, 56ff
she, 68
should, 60ff
shrank, 55
sit and set, 114, 141
slow, 45, 64, 65
so, 52, 92
soft, 64
stop, 163
subject-verb agreement, 78ff
- subjunctive, 42, 6lff
such, 92
rnre, 140
swam, 55
swa.ng, 55
syntax, 52, 78ff

than, 109, 144
than whom, 145, 146
that, 76, 106, 163
there, 163
there is, 80
this, 106, 163

qt

·~.· j,C. '
,., .. .~'
·, •!/Ii
.

~~ .. .,,;_v:

1 i2

tight, 65
to, 95 , 98

ungrammatical gender, 68
usage , 52 , 114ff
u_sed, 54
was, 45, 64

TN DEX
ways, 45
who, whom, 74ff
whoever, 76
whomsoever, 7i
whose\ 147
will, 38, 52, 56ff
wont, 54
would, 54, 60ff

-

