"Such was Bonaparte's first interview with Barras. Subsequently the latter [Barras], finding himself," etc.

"This physical double of Bonaparte was Marat. I had seen a good deal of the latter [Marat] on the benches," etc.

The reader usually has to go back, if he would be sure which is former and which latter.

“Griffin paid no attention to Buttz. At the corner of Park and State Streets the latter [Buttz] drew a revolver," etc.

"During the altercation between the moderator and the accused, the former [moderator] declared Mr. Blank suspended, whereupon the latter [Mr. Blank] rose and said: 'You have," etc.

Forward. This word, like upward, downward, toward, and other compounds of ward, is often written with a final s, yet the s is generally considered a superfluity.

Frequently. See GENERALLY.

Friend-Acquaintance. Some philosopher has said that he that has half a dozen friends in the course of his life may deem himself fortunate; and yet, to judge from many people's talk, one would suppose they had friends by the score. No man knows whether he has any friends or not until he has their adoption tried"; hence, he that is desirous to call things by their right names will, as a rule, use the word acquaintance instead of friend. “Your friend" is a favorite and very objectionable way many people, especially young people, have of writing themselves at the end of their letters. In this way the obscure stripling protests himself the FRIEND of the first man in the land, and that, too, when he is, perhaps, a comparative stranger and asking a favor.

Future. Sometimes strangely misused for thereafter, after, afterward, subsequent, thus:

66

His future [subsequent] career is involved in mystery.” Early the following year they bought a place in the country, where they resided [lived] a good deal for the future [afterward]."

"It was a triumph, and for the future [thereafter] Maurice found his men more easily managed."

Many a time in the future [afterward, or subsequently] when the story was told," etc.

"Her future [after] life was," etc.

"At a future [subsequent] meeting Sir David was served with an indictment."

"Upon all future [subsequent] occasions the Queen. was very affable."

“And what was the future [subsequent] career of these two?"

Future can not properly be used with a past tense, except where the statement has the effect of an indirect quotation; as, "He said his whole future career depended on his yielding."

Gender. When nobody, no one, no person, not any one, one, or not anybody is the antecedent-i. e., when the antecedent may be of either sexx--the masculine pronoun should always be used.

"Nobody [else] ever [has] put so much of themselves [himself] into their [his] work."-Leslie Stephen on Charlotte Brontë.

"There was something indignant in her manner, like one who felt herself [himself] under the mortifying necessity of conforming to the will of others." The felt should be feels.

Generally. Here is a word that is very frequently used

when the proper word would be one of its synonyms—usually, frequently, or commonly. I quote from Crabb :

"What is commonly done is an action common to all; what is generally done is the action of the greatest part; what is frequently done is either the action of many, or an action many times repeated by the same person; what is usually done is done regularly by one or by many. Commonly is opposed to rarely; generally and frequently to occasionally or seldom; usually to casually. Men commonly judge of others by themselves; those who judge by the mere exterior are generally deceived; but notwithstanding every precaution, one is frequently exposed to gross frauds; a man of business usually repairs to his countinghouse every day at a certain hour."

There is always a best word to use; but one can not always find that best word, try as one may.

Gentleman. Few things are in worse taste than to use the term gentleman, whether in the singular or the plural, to designate the sex. "If I was a gentleman," says Miss Snooks. Gentlemen have just as much curiosity as ladies," says Mrs. Jenkins. "Gentlemen have so much more liberty than we ladies have," says Mrs. Parvenue. Now, if these ladies were ladies, they would in each of these cases use the word man instead of gentleman, and woman instead of lady. Further, Miss Snooks would say, If I were." Well-bred men, men of culture and refinement-gentlemen, in shortuse the terms lady and gentleman comparatively little, and they are especially careful not to call themselves gentlemen when they can avoid it. A gentleman, for example, does not say, "I, with some other gentlemen, went," etc.; he is careful to leave out the word other. The men that use these terms most, and especially those that lose no opportunity to proclaim themselves gentlemen, belong to that class

of men that cock their hats on one side of their heads, and often wear them when and where gentlemen would remove them; that pride themselves on their familiarity with the latest slang; that proclaim their independence by showing the least possible consideration for others; that laugh long and loud at their own wit; that wear a profusion of cheap finery, such as outlandish watch chains hooked in the lowest button-hole of their waistcoats, Brazilian diamonds in their shirt bosoms, and big seal rings on their little fingers; that use bad grammar and interlard their conversation with big oaths. In business correspondence, Smith is addressed as Sir, while Smith & Brown are often addressed as Gentlemen—or, vulgarly, as Gents. It is better to address them as Sirs.

Since writing the foregoing, I have met with the following paragraph in the London publication, All the Year Round: "Socially, the term 'gentleman' has become almost vulgar. It is certainly less employed by gentlemen than by inferior persons. The one speaks of 'a man I know,' the other of 'a gentleman I know.' In the one case the gentleman is taken for granted, in the other it seems to need specification. Again, as regards the term 'lady.' It is quite in accordance with the usages of society to speak of your acquaintance the duchess as person.' People who would say 'very nice lady' are not generally of a social class that has much to do with duchesses; and if you speak of one of these as a 'person,' you will soon be made to feel your mistake."

·

a very nice

"In nine cases out of ten the use of gentleman for man is a case of affectation founded neither in education nor politeness."-N. Y. Sun.

Gents. Of all vulgarisms, this is perhaps the most offensive. If we say gents, why not say lades?

Gerund. "I have work to do,' 'there is no more to say,' are phrases where the verb is not in the common infinitive, but in the form of the gerund. 'He is the man to 'A house to let,' 'the course to steer

do it, or for doing it.' by,' 'a place to lie in,' a thing to be done,' 'a city to take refuge in,'' the means to do ill deeds,' are adjective gerunds; they may be expanded into clauses: a house that the owner lets or will let'; 'the course that we should steer by'; 'a thing that should be done'; 'a city wherein one may take refuge'; 'the means whereby ill deeds may be done.' When the to ceased in the twelfth century to be a distinctive mark of the dative infinitive or gerund, for was introduced to make the Hence the familiar form in

writer's intention clear. 'What went ye out for to see?''they came for to show him the temple.'"-Bain.

66

Girl. Sometimes vulgarly employed instead of daughter. A father whose permission was asked to marry one of his girls," answered: "Certainly. Which one will you have-the chambermaid, or the cook?"

Good. Sometimes improperly used instead of well, in forming compound adjectives with the participles fitting, shaped, and conditioned.

Things are well-shaped, not good-shaped, and garments are well-fitting, and not good-fitting.

"Her feet are said to be usually without an instep, and owe all their beauty to well-fitting shoes."

Goods. This term, like other terms used in trade, should be restricted to the vocabulary of commerce. Messrs. Arnold & Constable, in common with the Washington Market huckster, very properly speak of their wares as their goods; but Mrs. Arnold and Mrs. Constable shouldand I doubt not do-speak of their gowns as being made of