CLEARNESS AND FORCE

Numbers in Brackets Refer to the Rules

*1. Use words in their proper sense.*

Write, not “His apparent guilt justified his friends in disowning him,” but “his evident guilt.” “Conscious” and “aware,” “unnatural” and “Supernatural,” “transpire” and “occur,” “circumstance” and “event,” “reverse” and “converse,” “eliminate” and “elicit,” are often confused together. This rule forbids the use of the same word in different senses. “It is in my power to refuse your request, and since I have the power to do this, I may lawfully do it.” Here the second “power” is used for “authority.” This rule also forbids the slovenly use of “nice,” “awfully,” “delicious,” “glorious,” See (2).

*2. Avoid exaggerations.*

“The boundless plains in the heart of the empire furnished inexhaustible supplies of corn, that would have almost sufficed for twice the population.” Here “inexhaustible” is inconsistent with what follows. The words “unprecedented,” “incalculable,” “very,” and “stupendous” are often used in the same loose way.

*3. Avoid useless circumlocution and “fine writing.”*

“Her Majesty here partook of lunch.” Write “lunched.” “Partook of” implies sharing, and is incorrect as well as lengthy. So, do not use “apex” for “top,” “species” for “kind,” “individual” for “man,” “assist” for “help,” &c.

*4. Be careful how you use the following words: “not … and,” “any,” “only,” “not … or,” “that.”*

[5]

*And.* See below, “Or.”

*Any.*—“I am not bound to receive any messenger that you send.” Does this mean every or a single? Use “every” or “a single.”

*Not.*—(1) “I do not intend to help you because you are my enemy &c.” ought to mean (2), “I intend not to help you, and my reason for not helping you is, because you are my enemy.” But it is often wrongly used to mean (3), “I intend to help you, not because you are my enemy (but because you are poor, blind, &c.).” In the latter case, not ought to be separated from intending. By distinctly marking the limits to which the influence of not extends, the ambiguity may be removed.

*Only* is often used ambiguously for alone. “The rest help me to revenge myself; you only advise me to wait.” This ought to mean, “you only advice, instead of helping;” but in similar sentences “you only” is often used for “you alone.” But see 21.

*Or.*—When “or” is preceded by a negative, as “I do not want butter or honey,” “or” ought not, strictly speaking, to be used like “and,” nor like “nor.” The strict use of “not … or” would be as follows:—

“You say you don’t want both butter and honey—you want butter or honey; I, on the contrary, do not want butter or honey—I want them both.”

Practically, however, this meaning is so rare, that “I don’t want butter or honey” is regularly used for “I want neither butter nor honey.” But where there is the slightest danger of ambiguity, it is desirable to use nor.

The same ambiguity attends “not … and.” “I do not see Thomas and John” is commonly used for “I see neither Thomas nor John;” but it might mean, “I do not see them both—I see only one of them.”

*That.*—The different uses of “that” produce much ambiguity, e.g. “I am so much surprised by this statement that I am desirous of resigning, that I scarcely know what reply to make.” Here it is impossible to tell, till one has read past “resigning,” whether the first “that” depends upon “so” or “statement.” Write: “The statement that I am desirous of resigning surprises me so much that I scarcely know &c.”

*4 a. Be careful in the use of ambiguous words, e.g. “certain.”*

“Certain” is often used for “some,” as in “Independently of his earnings, he has a certain property,” where the meaning might be “unfailing.”

Under this head may be mentioned the double use of words, such as “left” in the same form and sound, but different in meaning. Even where there is no obscurity, the juxtaposition of the same word twice used in two senses is inelegant, e.g. (Bain), “He turned to the left and left the room.”

I have known the following slovenly sentence misunderstood: “Our object is that, with the aid of practice, we may sometimes arrive at the point where we think eloquence in its most praiseworthy form to lie.” “To lie” has been supposed to mean “to deceive.”

*5. Be careful how you use “he,” “it,” “they,” “these,” &c.* (For “which” see 8.) The ambiguity arising from the use of the applying to different persons is well known.

“He told his friend that if he did not feel better in half an hour he thought he had better return.” See (6) for remedy.

Much ambiguity is also caused by excessive use of such phrases as in this way, of this sort, &c.

“God, foreseeing the disorders of human nature, has given us certain passions and affections which arise from, or whose objects are these disorders. Of this sort are fear, resentment, compassion.”

Repeat the noun: “Among these passions and affections are fear &c.”

Two distinct uses of it may be noted. It, when referring to something that precedes, may be called “retrospective;” but when to something that follows, “prospective.” In “Avoid indiscriminate charity: it is a crime,” “it” is retrospective.[6] In “It is a crime to give indiscriminately,” “it” is perspective.

The perspective “it,” if productive of ambiguity, can often be omitted by using the infinitive as a subject: “To give indiscriminately is a crime.”

*6. Report a speech in the First, not the Third Person, where necessary to avoid ambiguity.* Speeches in the third person afford a particular, though the very common case, of the general ambiguity mentioned in (5). Instead of “He told his friend that if he did not feel better &c.,” write “He said to his friend, ‘If, I (or you ) don’t feel better &c.’”

*6 a. Sometimes, where the writer cannot know the exact words, or where the exact words are unimportant, or lengthy and uninteresting, the Third Person is preferable.* Thus, where Essex is asking Sir Robert Cecil that Francis Bacon may be appointed Attorney-General, the dialogue is (as it almost always is in Lord Macaulay’s writings) in the First Person, except where it becomes tedious and uninteresting so as to require condensation, and then it drops into the Third Person:

“Sir Robert had nothing to say but that he thought his own abilities equal to the place which he hoped to obtain, and that his father’s long services deserved such a mark of gratitude from the Queen.”

*6 b. The omission of “that” in a speech reported in the Third Person.*—Even when a speech is reported in the third person, “that” need not always be inserted before the dependent verb. Thus, instead of “He said that he took it ill that his promises were not believed,” we may write, “’He took it ill,’ he said, ‘that &c.’“ This gives a little more life, and sometimes more clearness also.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I heard this from the inspector, who (and he) heard it from the guard that traveled by train.”

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

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

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

*Exceptions:*—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*10. Equivalents for Relative.*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write “notwithstanding that he wrote and affected &c.”

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

“What is the splendor of the greatest monarch compared with the beauty of a flower?” “What is the splendor of Solomon compared with the beauty of a daisy?”

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

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

*13. Use Metaphor instead of literal statement.*

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

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

*14. Do not confuse Metaphor.*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Video Material