succession, as in the utterance they are widely different. Thus used, they are not at all disturbing, not at all tautophonic. Two successive thats are tautophonic to the eye only. The demonstrative that always has its full name sound, while the other that, be it a conjunction or a relative, is barely touched; thus, "I say th't THAT book is old." "Where is THAT th't I gave you?" Indeed, three successive thats are not at all disturbing-e. g., "They, therefore, that treat of these subjects more boldly, venture to say th❜t THAT th't is base is the only evil."

"Who is that that dares to address the court?"Dickens.

"We must next allude to the cases where the relative is governed by a preposition. We can use a preposition before who (in the objective case whom) and which, but when the relative is that the preposition must be thrown to the end of the clause. Owing to an imperfect appreciation of the genius of our language, offense was taken at this usage by some of our leading writers at the beginning of last century, and to this circumstance we must refer the disuse of that as the relative of restriction."-Bain's Grammar.

"That can not 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.”—Abbott's How to Write Clearly.

“In every other language the preposition is almost constantly prefixed to the noun which [that] it governs; in English it is sometimes placed not only after the noun, but at a considerable distance from it, as in the following example: The infirmary was, indeed, never so full as on this day, which I was at some loss to account for.' Here no fewer than seven words intervene between the relative

which and the preposition for belonging to it. One would imagine, to consider the matter abstractly, that this could not fail in a language like ours, which admits so few inflections, to create obscurity. Yet this is seldom, if ever, the consequence. Indeed, the singularity of the idiom hath made some critics condemn it absolutely. That there is nothing analogous in any known tongue, ancient or modern, hath appeared to them a sufficient reason. I own it never appeared so to me."-Dr. Campbell's Rhetoric.

The constant placing of the preposition before the relative tends to make a writer's style turgid, ponderoussometimes, in fact, almost unidiomatic. It makes one's diction differ too widely from the diction of everyday life, which is the diction much the best suited to many kinds of composition.

The following examples, taken from Massinger's Grand Duke of Florence, will show what was the usage of the Elizabethan writers:

"For I must use the freedom I was born with."
"In that dumb rhetoric which you make use of."
"... if I had been heir
Of all the globes and scepters mankind bows to."
"... the name of friend

Which you are pleased to grace me with."

'. . . willfully ignorant, in my opinion,

Of what it did invite him to."

"I look to her as on a princess

I dare not be ambitious of.”

So in Shakespeare, to take an example out of many : "To have no screen between the part he played And him he played it for."

"Why, there is not a single sentence in this play that I do not know the meaning of."—Addison.

"Originality is a thing we constantly clamor for and constantly quarrel with."-Carlyle.

It will be observed that the relative, when it is the object, is often omitted.

ter,

66

It was not one with which he could find fault"; bet"One he could find fault with."

"It will be a joy to which I have looked forward with hope"; better, "A joy that I have looked forward to with hope."

"You are the first one to whom I have unburdened my mind"; better," First one I have unburdened my mind to." "The man to whom I refer"; better, "The man I refer to."

"Don't whip with a switch that has the leaves on if you want to tingle."-Beecher. How much of its idiomatic terseness this sentence would lose if changed to, Don't whip with a switch on which there are leaves,” or on which the leaves remain, or from which the leaves have not been removed!

66

The more thought one gives to the matter the more one will be inclined, I think, to discriminate in the use of the relative pronouns, and the less one will be opposed to that construction that puts the governing preposition at the end.

The. Careless writers sometimes write sheer nonsense, or say something very different from what they have in their minds, by the simple omission of the definite article ; thus, "The indebtedness of the English tongue to the French, Latin and Greek is disclosed in almost every sentence framed." According to this, there is such a thing as a French, Latin and Greek tongue. Professor Townsend

meant to say,

"The indebtedness of the English tongue

to the French, the Latin, and the Greek," etc.

The old and [the] new opinions had their active partisans within the walls of the college."

"This construction," Dr. Hodgson remarks, "is correct according to some grammarians, who hold that, if the noun is in the plural, the article must precede the first adjective only. But their rule takes no account of the ambiguity of such sentences as this: 'They drowned the black and white kittens.' Does this mean 'The kittens that were white with black spots,' or 'the kittens that were white and the kittens that were black'? • The white and black kittens' in the one case, and the white and the black kittens' in the other, leave no room for ambiguity."

Then. The use of this word as an adjective is condemned in very emphatic terms by some of our grammarians, and yet this use of it has the sanction of such eminent writers as Addison, Johnson, Whately, and Sir J. Hawkins. Johnson says, In his then situation," which, if brevity be really the soul of wit, certainly has much more soul in it than "In the situation he then occupied." However, it is doubtful whether then, as an adjective, will ever again find favor with careful writers.

Thence. See WHENCE.

Think for. We not infrequently hear a superfluous for tacked to a sentence; thus, "You will find that he knows more about the affair than you think for."

"These men, if you watch them, you will see have an eye to business in everything, and, content with small profits and quick turns, they make in speculation in the street or in pools more than people think for."—N. Y Times.

Those kind. "Those kind of apples are best": read, "That kind of apples is best." It is truly remarkable that many persons who can justly lay claim to the possession of considerable culture use this barbarous combination. It would be just as correct to say, "Those flock of geese," or Those or these drove of cattle," as to say, "Those or these sort or kind of people."

A plural pronoun and a singular noun do not go well together.

Threadbare quotations. Among the things that are in bad taste in speaking and writing, the use of threadbare quotations and expressions is in the front rank. Some of these usés et cassés old-timers are the following:

"Their name is legion"; "Hosts of friends"; The apper ten"; "Variety is the spice of life"; "Distance lends enchantment to the view"; "A thing of beauty is a joy for ever"; 'The light fantastic toe"; Own the soft impeachment"; "Fair women and brave men"; "Revelry by night"; "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Through. When used in the sense of have finished is an Americanism. The locution "I am through" is seldom heard in Great Britain.

Tidings. See NEWS.

To. We often find to, when the sign of the infinitive, separated by an adverb from the verb to which it belongs. Prof. A. P. Peabody says that no standard English writer makes this mistake, and that, as far as he knows, it occurs frequently with but one respectable American writer.

66

To, as the sign of the infinitive," says Godfrey Turner, 'as in to think, to write, to say, is as much a part or particle of the verb as it would be if placed at the end as an inflection. We should not do amiss, I think, were we to join it