CHAPTER V.

WORDS.

Choice of Expression.

43. The English language has a much larger stock of words than any other language ever used by man. Often a given idea will be represented quite accurately in English by either of two words; sometimes by any one of three. Thus we speak of a certain class of our population as the poor, the needy, the indigent, meaning the same thing no matter which one of the three words we use; we speak of a laboring man's pay, wages, earnings; of the meaning, sense, signification of a passage of Scripture; of a fitting, proper, appropriate exercise; something hinders, delays, retards us; we become tired, weary, fatigued. One needs a stock of equivalent words of this kind for the sake of variety.

Other sets of words in English represent the same idea, but with different degrees of intensity. Thus empty, vain, futile hopes; sameness, uniformity, monotony; an unwise, inconsiderate, silly, foolish, absurd, ridiculous statement; to like, admire, love; wealth, riches, opulence; to discountenance, deprecate, deplore, lament, bewail an act; vexed, provoked, indignant, angry; it is not impossible, it is possible, it is not unlikely, it is likely, it is not improbable, it is probable, it is certain. We need

to learn to distinguish degrees of meaning in words, so as not to overstate or understate ourselves. When a familiar word does not quite satisfy us, does not adequately or exactly express our meaning, we may be sure that there is another more fitting; and here a book of synonyms or the dictionary will help us.

Other sets of words represent the same idea in different applications. Thus while the words forgive, pardon, condone, excuse, acquit, absolve, remit, overlook, pass over, represent the same idea, each has its particular application, as will be seen by consulting the dictionary. So with house, residence, habitation, mansion; wages, salary, fee, stipend; fright, scare, panic; dread, dismay, consternation; guess, think, suppose; meeting, assembly, audience, congregation; choose, prefer, select; hanged, hung; allude, refer; healthy, healthful, wholesome; less, fewer; two, a couple, a pair; company, gathering, crew, gang, band, party; avow, acknowledge, confess; only, alone.

How to enlarge your Vocabulary.

44. One may enlarge one's stock of words by looking up the new words one reads, by trying to think of equivalent expressions for them, and by recalling and using them as they may be needed in one's own writing and speaking. We should try to make use of all of our language resources; but it should be with a knowledge of the meaning, applications, and implications of the words

we use.

Some words have formed close associations with other words. Thus, take steps, contract habits, pursue a course, turn to account, bear malice, pass over in silence, win

prizes. This is especially true of words used in connection with prepositions: agree with a person, agree to a proposition, differ from, comply with, confide in a friend, confide a secret to a friend, call on, dissent from, free from, adapted to a thing, adapted for a purpose, die of a disease, die by one's own hand, regard for a person, in regard to this, reconcile to. Some words call imperatively for others: as- ·80, either hardly when, the same that I saw, the same as before, such as, I do not know that I will, different from, other than.

or, neither

nor,

Sometimes the choice lies between an idiomatic and a bookish, or between a simple and a pretentious, expression; here the idiomatic or simple expression is preferable. Get used to (for become accustomed to), go to pieces (for collapse), get out of the way of (for avoid), get up (for rise), go to bed (for retire), make money (for acquire wealth), burn up (for be consumed), these expressions are not to be avoided.

Again, the choice may lie between a slang expression which rises to the lips only too readily, and a standard expression which requires some effort to recall. Here the choice should fall upon the standard expression; the effort is well spent in calling it to mind. Besides being, in many cases, vulgar in meaning or in implication, slang begets general carelessness in the use of language. It encourages laziness in the user by saving him the trouble of finding exact words for his meaning. It prevents him from increasing his stock of good words.

Especial care is needed in the choice of the words will and shall, would and should, who, which, and that.

Will and Shall.

45. In the simple future, shall is used in the first person, and will in the second and third persons; thus, "I, or we, shall enjoy reading the book," and "You, he, or they, will enjoy reading the book." In sentences expressing determination, will is used in the first person, and shall in the second and third persons; thus, “I, or we, will obey," and "You, he, or they, shall obey."

In questions, the same distinction between shall and will as expressing simple futurity or determination is seen in the following: "Shall I, or we?" (simple future, or equivalent to "do you wish me, or us, to?"); "Will I?" (ironical); "Shall you subscribe?" (mere information desired); "Will you subscribe?" (I want you to); "Shall he, or they?" (Do you wish him, or them, to?); "Will he or they?" (mere information desired).

In secondary clauses the reporter uses will, if the speaker used or would have used will; shall if the speaker used or would have used shall. Thus: Speaker, "I shall enjoy reading the book "; Reporter," He says he shall enjoy reading the book"; Speaker, — “I will not allow it"; Reporter, "He says he will not allow it"; Speaker,-"You (or they) shall seek in vain for it"; Reporter," He says you (or they) shall seek," etc.

Should corresponds to shall, and would to will, following corresponding rules. Thus, in reporting the sentences just given, the correct form would be, "He said he should enjoy reading the book," "He said he would not allow it," "He said you (or they) should seek in

vain for it." In conditional clauses exceptional care is needed, though the same distinctions are maintained.

Who, Which, That.

46. The relative pronoun that is restrictive, and introduces a clause that closely defines, limits, or qualifies the antecedent. A that-clause affects the antecedent as an adjective would affect the antecedent. Who and which are coördinating relatives, and introduce, not a modifying thought, but an additional thought of equal or greater importance. Who is equivalent to a conjunction plus a personal pronoun, and may be translated by the words and he, and they, though he, though they, for he, since they, etc., which words may often be used, with a gain to clearness, instead of who. Which is equivalent to a conjunction plus the word it, this, these, those, and may be translated by the words and this, and it, and these, a fact that, a circumstance that, etc., which words may often be used, with a gain to clearness, instead of which. Who and which are sometimes used restrictively, without loss of clearness, instead of the strictly correct that when the use of that would make a harsh combination, when the word that has already been used in another function in the same sentence, and when the use of that would throw a preposition to the end of the

sentence.

The aid of punctuation may be called in to distinguish restrictive from coördinative who or which. Since a comma is usually inserted before a coördinate relative, the omission of punctuation before who or which will give to the clause a restrictive force.