did he know?" But "Who saw you?" in this instance, is clearly not correct, since it says directly the opposite of what is intended.

Who was little used as a relative till about the sixteenth

century. Bain says: "In modern use, more especially in books, who is frequently employed to introduce a clause intended to restrict, define, limit, or explain a noun (or its equivalent); as, 'That is the man who spoke to us yesterday.'

"Here the clause introduced by who is necessary to define or explain the antecedent the man; without it, we do not know who the man is. Such relative clauses are typical adjective clauses-i. e., they have the same effect as adjectives in limiting nouns. This may be called the RESTRICTIVE use of the relative.

'Now it will be found that the practice of our most idiomatic writers and speakers is to prefer that to who in this application.

"Who is properly used in such co-ordinate sentences as, 'I met the watchman, who told me there had been a fire.' Here the two clauses are distinct and independent; in such a case, and he might be substituted for who.

'Another form of the same use is when the second clause is of the kind termed adverbial, where we may resolve who into a personal or demonstrative pronoun and conjunction. 'Why should we consult Charles, who [for he, seeing that he] knows nothing of the matter?'

"Who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom; for many good writers and speakers say 'Who are you talking of?' 'Who does the garden belong to?' 'Who is this for?' 'Who from?"" etc.

If this be true-if who may be regarded as a modern objective form, side by side with whom-then, of course,

such expressions as "Who did you see?" "Who did you meet?" "Who did he marry?" "Who were you with?" "Who will you give it to?" and the like, are correct. That they are used colloquially by well-nigh everybody, no one will dispute; but that they are correct, few grammarians will concede. See THAT.

Whole. This word is sometimes most improperly used for all; thus, "The whole Germans seem to be saturated with the belief that they are really the greatest people on earth, and that they would be universally recognized as being the greatest, if they were not so exceeding modest.” 'The whole Russians are inspired with the belief that their mission is to conquer the world."-Alison.

46

Whole of. Improperly used for entire and for all. We say properly, the entire audience; not, the whole of the audience. All the delegates; not, the whole of the delegates.

Wholesome. See HEALTHY.

Whom. The relative pronoun who is often very erroneously put in its objective form even by persons whose grammar is commonly correct. "I saw the man whom, they thought, was dead." The parenthetic clause they thought, we see, on a moment's reflection, does not alter the relation of the relative to its verb was, hence it should be, "I saw the man who," etc. No one would say, "I saw the man whom was dead."

"The younger Harper whom [who], they agree, was rather nice-looking."

'The two individuals [persons?] whom [who], he thought, were far away."

"Nina was annoyed by the presence of Mr. Jekyl, whom [who] her brother insisted should remain to dinner."

"Mr. and Mis. Oswell, whom [who], I thought, were most delightful people."

"A quiet and steady boy, whom [who], I firmly believe, never sinned in word, thought, or act."

"Friday, whom [who], he thinks, would be better than a dog, and almost as good as a pony."

"The Record has not ceased its attacks on Bishop Jackson, whom [who], it fears, may be translated to the See of London."

Whose. Mr. George Washington Moon discountenances the use of whose as the possessive of which. He says, "The best writers, when speaking of inanimate objects, use of which instead of whose." The correctness of this statement is doubtful. The truth is, I think, that good writers use that form for the possessive case of which that in their judgment is, in each particular case, the more euphonious, giving the preference, perhaps, to of which. On this subject Dr. Campbell says: "The possessive of who is properly whose. The pronoun which, originally indeclinable, had no possessive. This was supplied, in the common periphrastic manner, by the help of the preposition and the article. But, as this could not fail to enfeeble the expression, when so much time was given to mere conjunctives, all our best authors, both in prose and verse, have now come regularly to adopt, in such cases, the possessive of who, and thus have substituted one syllable in the room of three, as in the example following: 'Philosophy, whose end is to instruct us in the knowledge of nature,' for Philosophy, the end of which is to instruct us.' Some grammarians remonstrate; but it ought to be remembered that use, well established, must give law to grammar, and not grammar to use."

Professor Bain says: "Whose, although the possessive

of who, and practically of which, is yet frequently employed for the purpose of restriction: 'We are the more likely to guard watchfully against those faults whose deformity we have seen fully displayed in others.' This is better than 'the deformity of which we have seen.' 'Propositions of whose truth we have no certain knowledge.'— Locke."

Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall says that the use of whose for of which, where the antecedent is not only irrational but inanimate, has had the support of high authority for several hundred years.

Widowhood. There is good authority for using this word in speaking of men as well as of women.

Widow woman. Since widows are always women, why say a widow woman? It would be correct to say a widowed woman.

Will-Would. These two auxiliaries are continually misused in conversation and in the newspapers. Here are some examples, gathered chiefly from the newspapers :

"The Japanese said they thought they would [should] be in Peking on Nov. 30."

"Warden Sage said that he would [should] not put Buchanan. ...; he said that he would [should] be governed," etc.-N. Y. Evening Sun.

"We would [should] not grieve if immigration were to decline."-N. Y. Sun.

"Lawyer Gibbons said that he had not decided what course he would [should] pursue; he was certain, however, that he would [should] do nothing right away.”—N. Y. Evening Sun.

"They feel confident that out of the 3,500 men they will [shall] be able to cull talent that shall [will] send the department ahead."-N. Y, Evening Sun,

"If that be conservative ground, all we have to say is that we would [should] like to see," etc.

"They have a great many fine old jewels in London, but I would [should] not be surprised," etc.

"Commissioner Andrews announced that he would [should] call a special meeting."-N. Y. Sun.

"Commissioner Grant said he would [should] vote for Commissioner Roosevelt for president."-N. Y. Sun.

"They would [should] have a meeting to-day, he said.” -N. Y. Sun.

"He thought he would [should] be able to tell the public," etc.

"

I thought I would [should] go wild with anguish."

Such being the case, I would [should] rather not talk. We will [shall] simply move for a new trial. We will [shall] have to see how that motion ends."

"The Parade Committee sent a message saying that they would [should] be glad to furnish a carriage for him." "We would [should] not wonder if we were told,” etc. "My broker came to me, and told me that I would [should] have to put up more margin."

"He said he did not know yet whether or not he would [should] plead guilty."

"He said he would [should] have an investigation made."

"As we parted he grasped my hand, and said he would [should] look for my speedy recovery."

"A man asked me to-day if we would [should] like some squirrels."

"The justice said he was sorry, but that he would [should] have to commit him."

"Mrs. Winchester believes that when her house is finished she will [shall] die."—N, Y. Sun,