houses, "Entrance for males," "Entrance for females." Now bucks and bulls are males as well as boys and men, and cows and sows are females as well as girls and women. Fetch. See BRING.

Fewer. See LESS.

Final Completion. If there were such a thing as a plurality or a series of completions, there would, of course, be such a thing as the final completion; but, as every completion is final, to talk about a final completion is as absurd as it would be to talk about a final finality.

First rate. There are people who object to this phrase, and yet it is well enough when properly placed, as it is, for example, in such a sentence as this: "He's a 'first class' fellow, and I like him first rate; if I didn't, 'you bet' I'd just give him ‘hail Columbia' for 'blowing' the thing all round town like the big fool that he is."

Firstly. George Washington Moon says in defense of firstly: "I do not object to the occasional use of first as an adverb; but, in sentences where it would be followed by secondly, thirdly, etc., I think that the adverbial form is preferable." To this, one of Mr. Moon's critics replies: "However desirable it may be to employ the word firstly on certain occasions, the fact remains that the employment of it on any occasion is not the best usage." Webster inserts firstly, but remarks, " Improperly used for first."

Flee-Fly. These verbs, though near of kin, are not interchangeable. For example, we can not say, "He flew the city," "He flew from his enemies," "He flew at the approach of danger,” flew being the imperfect tense of to fly, which is properly used to express the action of birds on the wing, of kites, arrows, etc. The imperfect tense of to flee is fled; hence, "He fled the city," etc.

Forcible-feeble. This is a "novicy" kind of diction

in which the would-be forcible writer defeats his object by the overuse of expletives. Examples: "And yet the great centralization of wealth is one of the [great] evils of the day. All that Mr. utters [says] upon this point is forcible and just. This centralization is due to the enormous reproductive power of capital, to the immense advantage that costly and complicated machinery gives to great [large] establishments, and to the marked difference of personal force among men." The first great is misplaced; the word utters is misused; the second great is ill-chosen. The other words in italics only enfeeble the sentence. Again : "In countries where immense [large] estates exist, a breaking up of these vast demesnes into many minor freeholds would no doubt be a [of] very great advantage." Substitute large for immense, and take out vast, many, and very, and the language becomes much more forcible. Again: "The very first effect of the taxation plan would be destructive to the interests of this great multitude [class]; it would impoverish our innumerable farmers, it would confiscate the earnings of [our] industrious tradesmen and artisans, it would [and] paralyze the hopes of struggling millions." What a waste of portly expletives is here! With them the sentence is high-flown and weak; take them out, and introduce the words inclosed in brackets, and it becomes simple and forcible.

Friend-Acquaintance. Some philosopher has said that he who has half a dozen friends in the course of his life may esteem 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 who 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 bottom 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.

Galsome. Here is a good, sonorous Anglo-Saxon word -meaning malignant, venomous, churlish-that has fallen into disuse.

Gentleman. Few things are in worse taste than to use the term gentleman, whether in the singular or 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 who use these terms most, and especially those who lose no opportunity to proclaim themselves gentlemen, belong to that class of men who cock their hats on one side of their heads, and often wear them when and where gentlemen would remove them; who pride themselves on their familiarity with the latest slang; who proclaim their independence by showing the least possible consideration for others; who laugh long and loud at their own wit; who wear a profusion of cheap finery, such as outlandish watch-chains hooked in the low.

est button-hole of their vests, Brazilian diamonds in their shirt-bosoms, and big seal-rings on their little fingers; who 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. Better, much, is it 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 'a very nice person.' People who would say 'very nice lady' are not generally of a social class which 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."

་

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 do it, or for doing it.' 'A house to let,' 'the course to steer 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 writer's intention clear. Hence the familiar form in 'what went ye out for to see?' 'they came for to show him the temple.' ”—Bain.

Get. In sentences expressing simple possession-as, “I have got a book," "What has he got there?" "Have you got any news?" "They have got a new house," etc.-got is entirely superfluous, if not, as some writers contend, absolutely incorrect. Possession is completely expressed by have. "Foxes have holes; the birds of the air have nests"; not, "Foxes have got holes; the birds of the air have got nests." Formerly the imperfect tense of this verb was gat, which is now obsolete, and the perfect participle was gotten, which, some grammarians say, is growing obsolete. If this be true, there is no good reason for it. If we say eaten, written, striven, forgotten, why not say gotten, where this form of the participle is more euphonious—as it often is-than got?

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 should, and I doubt not do, speak of their gowns as being made of fine or coarse silk, cashmere, muslin, or whatever the material may be.

Gould against Alford. Mr. Edward S. Gould, in his review of Dean Alford's "Queen's English," remarks, on page 131 of his "Good English":"And now, as to the style of the Dean's book, taken as a whole. He must be held responsible for every error in it; because, as has been *Mr. Gould criticises the Dean's diction, not his style.

*