but "I love you as well as he," means that I love you as well as he loves you.

A common misuse of than is that of making it follow scarcely, hardly, when the proper word to follow them with is when; e. g.:

Scarcely had Bentley thus established his fame in this department of letters than [when] he as suddenly broke forth in a still higher."

Scarcely had he gone than [when] Clodius and several of his gay companions broke in upon him.”

"He had scarcely done so than [when] a French lieutenant endeavored to thrust in below him."

64

Hardly had misconduct succumbed to treatment than [when] it broke out in another."

Here is an example of the use of than that is occasionally met with, and that for incorrectness and outer awkwardness can not be surpassed:

"Girls are educated, in China, in a different way than boys"; meaning, doubtless, that "In China, boys and girls are educated in a different way." The sentence is from The Open Court.

Than... Help or Avoid. "I said no more than I could help or avoid." Here is an error in the use of help and of avoid that is made by pretty nearly everybody. The thought intended and the thought-owing to the commonness of the error-that is conveyed with this phrase is, "I said no more than what [or than that which, or than that that] I could not help or avoid saying," or I said only what I could not help or avoid saying," whereas the sentence really says, as we see if we look closely, "I said no more than what [or than that which] I could have avoided saying, had I been so inclined." If we supply the elliptical word what or the words than which, or that that

after than, we see the error more readily. "I'll give you no more trouble than I can help" means strictly, "I'll give you no more trouble than that trouble that I can or could help or avoid giving you"; yet the meaning intended is, "I'll give you no more trouble than that trouble that I can not help or avoid giving you." The exceeding commonness of this error, as we see, makes the sentence "I will give no more than I can help" convey the meaning "I will give no more than [just what] I can not help [giving]."

Than whom. Cobbett, in his Grammar of the English Language, says: "There is an erroneous way of employing whom which [that] I must point out to your particular attention, because it is so often seen in very good writers, and because it is very deceiving. The Duke of Argyll, than whom no man was more hearty in the cause.' 'Cromwell, than whom no man was better skilled in artifice.' A hundred such phrases might be collected from Hume, Blackstone, and even from Drs. Blair and Johnson; yet they are bad grammar. In all such cases, who should be made use of, for it is nominative and not objective. 'No man was more hearty in the cause than he was'; 'No man was better skilled in artifice than he was.'* It is a very common Parliament-house phrase, and therefore presumably corrupt; but it is a Dr. Johnson phrase, too: Pope, than whom few men had more vanity.' The doctor did not say, 'Myself, than whom few men have been found more base, having, in my dictionary, described a pensioner as a slave of state, and having afterward myself become a pensioner.'

"I differ in this matter from Bishop Lowth, who says that the relative who, having reference to no verb or

*"Cromwell-than he, no man was more skilled in artifice; or, Cromwell-no man was more skilled in artifice than he [was]."

preposition understood, but only to its antecedent, when it follows than, is always in the objective case; even though the pronoun, if substituted in its place, would be in the nominative'; and then he gives an instance from Milton: 'Beelzebub, than whom, Satan except, none higher sat.' It is curious enough that this sentence of the bishop is itself ungrammatical! Our poor unfortunate it is so placed as to make it a matter of doubt whether the bishop meant it to relate to who or to its antecedent. However, we know its meaning; but though he says that who, when it follows than, is always in the objective case, he gives us no reason for this departure from a clear general principle; unless we are to regard as a reason the example of Milton, who has committed many hundreds, if not thousands, of grammatical errors, many of which the bishop himself has pointed out. There is a sort of side-wind attempt at reason in the words, 'having reference to no verb or preposition understood.' I do not see the reason, even if this could be; but it appears to me impossible that a noun or pronoun can exist in a grammatical state without having reference to some verb or preposition, either expressed or understood. What is meant by Milton? 'Than Beelzebub, none sat higher, except Satan.' And when, in order to avoid the repetition of the word Beelzebub, the relative becomes necessary, the full construction must be, 'No devil sat higher than who sat, except Satan'; and not, 'No devil sat higher than whom sat.'* The supposition that there can be a noun or pronoun which has reference to no verb and no preposition, is certainly a mistake."

Of this, Dr. Fitz-Edward Hall remarks, in his Recent

"

Exemplifications of False Philology: That any one but Cobbett would abide this as English is highly improbable;

་་

*"No devil sat higher than he sat, except Satan."

and how the expression-a quite classical one-which he discards can be justified grammatically, except by calling its than a preposition, others may resolve at their leisure and pleasure."

Thanks. There are many persons that think it in questionable taste to use "Thanks" for “Thank you."

That. This word is sometimes vulgarly used as an adverb instead of so; thus, that headstrong, that angry, that excitable, and so forth.

That is not infrequently repeated to the great detriment of the sentence, thus, "I tell him that if you were to hear him speak English-which he does in the prettiest manner-that you could not refrain from kissing him."

"We can not help imagining that upon starting with a fair wind on a voyage of only a day and a half that our arrival will be speedy in proportion to the favor of the breeze."

That is also improperly used in the sense of such a; thus, "The confusion had now reached that degree,"

etc.

That-Which—Who. Owing to the indiscriminate, haphazard use of the relative pronouns that almost universally prevails, there is never, probably, a newspaper, and rarely a book, printed in the English language in which there are not ambiguous sentences; and yet this ambiguity can be easily avoided, as we see if we give the subject a little attention.

So long as we continue to use the relative pronouns indiscriminately, the meaning of all but one of the following six sentences—which are all grammatically and idiomatically correct—and of all like sentences, will be doubtful:

1. These are the master's rules, who must be obeyed.

2. These are the rules of the master, who must be obeyed.

3. These are the rules of the master, that must be obeyed.

4. These are the rules of the master, which must be obeyed.

5. These are the master's rules, which must be obeyed. 6. These are the master's rules, that must be obeyed.

Nos. 1 and 2 should mean : These are the rules of the master, and he must be obeyed; but they may mean: These are the rules of a certain one of several masters, and this one is the one we must obey.

No. 3 may mean: Of the master's rules, these are the ones that must be obeyed. It may also mean: Of several masters, these are the rules of the one whose rules must be obeyed.

Nos. 4 and 5 may mean: These are the rules of the master, and they must be obeyed; or they may mean: Of the rules of the master, these are the ones that must be obeyed.

That is properly the restrictive relative pronoun, and which and who are properly the co-ordinating relative pronouns. That, when properly used, introduces something without which the antecedent is not fully defined, whereas which and who, when properly used, introduce a new fact concerning the antecedent.

Whenever a clause restricts, limits, defines, qualifies the antecedent-i. e., whenever it is adjectival, explanatory in its functions-it should be introduced with the relative pronoun that, and not with which, nor with who or whom.

The use of that solely to introduce restrictive clauses, and who and which solely to introduce co-ordinating clauses, avoids ambiguities that must occasionally come