<h2 name="CHAPTER_VIII">CHAPTER VIII</h2>
<h3>PITFALLS TO AVOID</h3>
<h4>Common Stumbling Blocks—Peculiar
Constructions—Misused Forms.</h4></center>
<h3>ATTRACTION</h3>
<p>Very often the verb is separated from its real nominative or
subject by several intervening words and in such cases one is
liable to make the verb agree with the subject nearest to it. Here
are a few examples showing that the leading writers now and then
take a tumble into this pitfall:</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p>"The partition which the two ministers made of the powers of
government <i>were</i> singularly
happy."—<i>Macaulay</i>.</p>
<p>(Should be <i>was</i> to agree with its subject,
<i>partition</i>.)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>"One at least of the qualities which fit it for training
ordinary men <i>unfit</i> it for <i>training</i> an extraordinary
man."—<i>Bagehot</i>.</p>
<p>(Should be <i>unfits</i> to agree with subject
<i>one</i>.)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>"The Tibetans have engaged to exclude from their country those
dangerous influences whose appearance <i>were</i> the chief cause
of our action."—<i>The Times</i>.</p>
<p>(Should be <i>was</i> to agree with <i>appearance</i>.)</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>"An immense amount of confusion and indifference <i>prevail</i>
in these days."—<i>Telegraph</i>.</p>
<p>(Should be <i>prevails</i> to agree with amount.)</p>
</li></ol>
<h3>ELLIPSIS</h3>
<p>Errors in ellipsis occur chiefly with prepositions.</p>
<p>His objection and condoning of the boy's course, seemed to say
the least, paradoxical.</p>
<p>(The preposition <i>to</i> should come after objection.)</p>
<p>Many men of brilliant parts are crushed by force of
circumstances and their genius forever lost to the world.</p>
<p>(Some maintain that the missing verb after genius is <i>are</i>,
but such is ungrammatical. In such cases the right verb should be
always expressed: as—their genius <i>is</i> forever lost to
the world.</p>
<h3>THE SPLIT INFINITIVE</h3>
<p>Even the best speakers and writers are in the habit of placing a
modifying word or words between the <i>to</i> and the remaining
part of the infinitive. It is possible that such will come to be
looked upon in time as the proper form but at present the splitting
of the infinitive is decidedly wrong. "He was scarcely able
<i>to</i> even <i>talk</i>" "She commenced <i>to</i> rapidly
<i>walk</i> around the room." "<i>To have</i> really <i>loved</i>
is better than not <i>to have</i> at all <i>loved</i>." In these
constructions it is much better not to split the infinitive. In
every-day speech the best speakers sin against this observance.</p>
<p>In New York City there is a certain magistrate, a member of "the
400," who prides himself on his diction in language. He tells this
story: A prisoner, a faded, battered specimen of mankind, on whose
haggard face, deeply lined with the marks of dissipation, there
still lingered faint reminders of better days long past, stood
dejected before the judge. "Where are you from?" asked the
magistrate. "From Boston," answered the accused. "Indeed," said the
judge, "indeed, yours is a sad case, and yet you don't seem
<i>to</i> thoroughly <i>realise</i> how low you have sunk." The man
stared as if struck. "Your honor does me an injustice," he said
bitterly. "The disgrace of arrest for drunkenness, the
mortification of being thrust into a noisome dungeon, the publicity
and humiliation of trial in a crowded and dingy courtroom I can
bear, but to be sentenced by a Police Magistrate who <i>splits his
infinitives</i>—that is indeed the last blow."</p>
<h3>ONE</h3>
<p>The indefinite adjective pronoun <i>one</i> when put in place of
a personal substantive is liable to raise confusion. When a
sentence or expression is begun with the impersonal <i>one</i> the
word must be used throughout in all references to the subject.
Thus, "One must mind one's own business if one wishes to succeed"
may seem prolix and awkward, nevertheless it is the proper form.
You must not say—"One must mind his business if he wishes to
succeed," for the subject is impersonal and therefore cannot
exclusively take the masculine pronoun. With <i>any one</i> it is
different. You may say—"If any one sins he should acknowledge
it; let him not try to hide it by another sin."</p>
<h3>ONLY</h3>
<p>This is a word that is a pitfall to the most of us whether
learned or unlearned. Probably it is the most indiscriminately used
word in the language. From the different positions it is made to
occupy in a sentence it can relatively change the meaning. For
instance in the sentence—"I <i>only</i> struck him that
time," the meaning to be inferred is, that the only thing I did to
him was to <i>strike</i> him, not kick or otherwise abuse him. But
if the <i>only</i> is shifted, so as to make the sentence read-"I
struck him <i>only</i> that time" the meaning conveyed is, that
only on that occasion and at no other time did I strike him. If
another shift is made to-"I struck <i>only</i> him that time," the
meaning is again altered so that it signifies he was the only
person I struck.</p>
<p>In speaking we can by emphasis impress our meaning on our
hearers, but in writing we have nothing to depend upon but the
position of the word in the sentence. The best rule in regard to
<i>only</i> is to place it <i>immediately before</i> the word or
phrase it modifies or limits.</p>
<h3>ALONE</h3>
<p>is another word which creates ambiguity and alters meaning. If
we substitute it for only in the preceding example the meaning of
the sentence will depend upon the arrangement. Thus "I <i>alone</i>
struck him at that time" signifies that I and no other struck him.
When the sentence reads "I struck him <i>alone</i> at that time" it
must be interpreted that he was the only person that received a
blow. Again if it is made to read "I struck him at that time
<i>alone</i>" the sense conveyed is that that was the only occasion
on which I struck him. The rule which governs the correct use of
<i>only</i> is also applicable to <i>alone</i>.</p>
<h3>OTHER AND ANOTHER</h3>
<p>These are words which often give to expressions a meaning far
from that intended. Thus, "I have <i>nothing</i> to do with that
<i>other</i> rascal across the street," certainly means that I am a
rascal myself. "I sent the despatch to my friend, but another
villain intercepted it," clearly signifies that my friend is a
villain.</p>
<p>A good plan is to omit these words when they can be readily done
without, as in the above examples, but when it is necessary to use
them make your meaning clear. You can do this by making each
sentence or phrase in which they occur independent of contextual
aid.</p>
<h3>AND WITH THE RELATIVE</h3>
<p>Never use <i>and</i> with the <i>relative</i> in this manner:
"That is the dog I meant <i>and which</i> I know is of pure breed."
This is an error quite common. The use of <i>and</i> is permissible
when there is a parallel relative in the preceding sentence or
clause. Thus: "There is the dog which I meant and.which I know is
of pure breed" is quite correct.</p>
<h3>LOOSE PARTICIPLES</h3>
<p>A participle or participial phrase is naturally referred to the
nearest nominative. If only one nominative is expressed it claims
all the participles that are not by the construction of the
sentence otherwise fixed. "John, working in the field all day and
getting thirsty, drank from the running stream." Here the
participles <i>working</i> and <i>getting</i> clearly refer to
John. But in the sentence,—"Swept along by the mob I could
not save him," the participle as it were is lying around loose and
may be taken to refer to either the person speaking or to the
person spoken about. It may mean that I was swept along by the mob
or the individual whom I tried to save was swept along.</p>
<p>"Going into the store the roof fell" can be taken that it was
the roof which was going into the store when it fell. Of course the
meaning intended is that some person or persons were going into the
store just as the roof fell.</p>
<p>In all sentence construction with participles there should be
such clearness as to preclude all possibility of ambiguity. The
participle should be so placed that there can be no doubt as to the
noun to which it refers. Often it is advisable to supply such words
as will make the meaning obvious.</p>
<h3>BROKEN CONSTRUCTION</h3>
<p>Sometimes the beginning of a sentence presents quite a different
grammatical construction from its end. This arises from the fact
probably, that the beginning is lost sight of before the end is
reached. This occurs frequently in long sentences. Thus: "Honesty,
integrity and square-dealing will bring anybody much better through
life than the absence of either." Here the construction is broken
at <i>than</i>. The use of <i>either</i>, only used in referring to
one of two, shows that the fact is forgotten that three qualities
and not two are under consideration. Any one of the three meanings
might be intended in the sentence, viz., absence of any one
quality, absence of any two of the qualities or absence of the
whole three qualities. Either denotes one or the other of two and
should never be applied to any one of more than two. When we fall
into the error of constructing such sentences as above, we should
take them apart and reconstruct them in a different grammatical
form. Thus,—"Honesty, integrity and square-dealing will bring
a man much better through life than a lack of these qualities which
are almost essential to success."</p>
<h3>DOUBLE NEGATIVE</h3>
<p>It must be remembered that two negatives in the English language
destroy each other and are equivalent to an affirmative. Thus "I
<i>don't</i> know <i>nothing</i> about it" is intended to convey,
that I am ignorant of the matter under consideration, but it
defeats its own purpose, inasmuch as the use of nothing implies
that I know something about it. The sentence should read—"I
don't know anything about it."</p>
<p>Often we hear such expressions as "He was <i>not</i> asked to
give <i>no</i> opinion," expressing the very opposite of what is
intended. This sentence implies that he was asked to give his
opinion. The double negative, therefore, should be carefully
avoided, for it is insidious and is liable to slip in and the
writer remain unconscious of its presence until the eye of the
critic detects it.</p>
<h3>FIRST PERSONAL PRONOUN</h3>
<p>The use of the first personal pronoun should be avoided as much
as possible in composition. Don't introduce it by way of apology
and never use such expressions as "In my opinion," "As far as I can
see," "It appears to me," "I believe," etc. In what you write, the
whole composition is expressive of your views, since you are the
author, therefore, there is no necessity for you to accentuate or
emphasize yourself at certain portions of it.</p>
<p>Moreover, the big <i>I's</i> savor of egotism! Steer clear of
them as far as you can. The only place where the first person is
permissible is in passages where you are stating a view that is not
generally held and which is likely to meet with opposition.</p>
<h3>SEQUENCE OF TENSES</h3>
<p>When two verbs depend on each other their tenses must have a
definite relation to each other. "I shall have much pleasure in
accepting your kind invitation" is wrong, unless you really mean
that just now you decline though by-and-by you intend to accept; or
unless you mean that you do accept now, though you have no pleasure
in doing so, but look forward to be more pleased by-and-by. In fact
the sequence of the compound tenses puzzle experienced writers. The
best plan is to go back in thought to the time in question and use
the tense you would <i>then</i> naturally use. Now in the sentence
"I should have liked to have gone to see the circus" the way to
find out the proper sequence is to ask yourself the
question—what is it I "should have liked" to do? and the
plain answer is "to go to see the circus." I cannot
answer—"To have gone to see the circus" for that would imply
that at a certain moment I would have liked to be in the position
of having gone to the circus. But I do not mean this; I mean that
at the moment at which I am speaking I wish I had gone to see the
circus. The verbal phrase <i>I should have liked</i> carries me
back to the time when there was a chance of seeing the circus and
once back at the time, the going to the circus is a thing of the
present. This whole explanation resolves itself into the simple
question,—what should I have liked <i>at that time</i>, and
the answer is "to go to see the circus," therefore this is the
proper sequence, and the expression should be "I should have liked
to go to see the circus."</p>
<p>If we wish to speak of something relating to a time <i>prior</i>
to that indicated in the past tense we must use the perfect tense
of the infinitive; as, "He appeared to have seen better days." We
should say "I expected to <i>meet him</i>," not "I expected <i>to
have met him</i>." "We intended <i>to visit you</i>," not "<i>to
have visited</i> you." "I hoped they <i>would</i> arrive," not "I
hoped they <i>would have</i> arrived." "I thought I should
<i>catch</i> the bird," not "I thought I should <i>have caught</i>
the bird." "I had intended <i>to go</i> to the meeting," not "I had
intended to <i>have gone</i> to the meeting."</p>
<h3>BETWEEN—AMONG</h3>
<p>These prepositions are often carelessly interchanged.
<i>Between</i> has reference to two objects only, <i>among</i> to
more than two. "The money was equally divided between them" is
right when there are only two, but if there are more than two it
should be "the money was equally divided among them."</p>
<h3>LESS—FEWER</h3>
<p><i>Less</i> refers is quantity, <i>fewer</i> to number. "No man
has <i>less</i> virtues" should be "No man has <i>fewer</i>
virtues." "The farmer had some oats and a <i>fewer</i> quantity of
wheat" should be "the farmer had some oats and a <i>less</i>
quantity of wheat."</p>
<h3>FURTHER—FARTHER</h3>
<p><i>Further</i> is commonly used to denote quantity,
<i>farther</i> to denote distance. "I have walked <i>farther</i>
than you," "I need no <i>further</i> supply" are correct.</p>
<h3>EACH OTHER—ONE ANOTHER</h3>
<p><i>Each other</i> refers to two, <i>one another</i> to more than
two. "Jones and Smith quarreled; they struck each other" is
correct. "Jones, Smith and Brown quarreled; they struck one
another" is also correct. Don't say, "The two boys teach one
another" nor "The three girls love each other."</p>
<h3>EACH, EVERY, EITHER, NEITHER</h3>
<p>These words are continually misapplied. <i>Each</i> can be
applied to two or any higher number of objects to signify <i>every
one</i> of the number <i>independently</i>. Every requires <i>more
than two</i> to be spoken of and denotes all the <i>persons</i> or
<i>things</i> taken <i>separately</i>. <i>Either</i> denotes <i>one
or the other of two</i>, and should not be used to include both.
<i>Neither</i> is the negative of either, denoting not the other,
and not the one, and relating to <i>two persons</i> or
<i>things</i> considered separately.</p>
<p>The following examples illustrate the correct usage of these
words:</p>
<p><i>Each</i> man of the crew received a reward.</p>
<p><i>Every</i> man in the regiment displayed bravery.</p>
<p>We can walk on <i>either</i> side of the street.</p>
<p><i>Neither</i> of the two is to blame.</p>
<h3>NEITHER-NOR</h3>
<p>When two singular subjects are connected by <i>neither</i>,
<i>nor</i> use a singular verb; as, <i>Neither</i> John <i>nor</i>
James <i>was there</i>," not <i>were</i> there.</p>
<h3>NONE</h3>
<p>Custom Has sanctioned the use of this word both with a singular
and plural; as—"None <i>is</i> so blind as he who will not
see" and "None <i>are</i> so blind as they who will not see."
However, as it is a contraction of <i>no one</i> it is better to
use the singular verb.</p>
<h3>RISE-RAISE</h3>
<p>These verbs are very often confounded. <i>Rise</i> is to move or
pass upward in any manner; as to "rise from bed;" to increase in
value, to improve in position or rank, as "stocks rise;"
"politicians rise;" "they have risen to honor."</p>
<p><i>Raise</i> is to lift up, to exalt, to enhance, as "I raise
the table;" "He raised his servant;" "The baker raised the price of
<i>bread</i>."</p>
<h3>LAY-LIE</h3>
<p>The transitive verb <i>lay</i>, and <i>lay</i>, the past tense
of the neuter verb <i>lie</i>, are often confounded, though quite
different in meaning. The neuter verb <i>to lie</i>, meaning to lie
down or rest, cannot take the objective after it except with a
preposition. We can say "He <i>lies</i> on the ground," but we
cannot say "He <i>lies</i> the ground," since the verb is neuter
and intransitive and, as such, cannot have a direct object. With
<i>lay</i> it is different. <i>Lay</i> is a transitive verb,
therefore it takes a direct object after it; as "I <i>lay</i> a
wager," "I <i>laid</i> the carpet," etc.</p>
<p>Of a carpet or any inanimate subject we should say, "It lies on
the floor," "A knife <i>lies</i> on the table," not <i>lays</i>.
But of a person we say—"He <i>lays</i> the knife on the
table," not "He <i>lies</i>——." <i>Lay</i> being the
past tense of the neuter to lie (down) we should say, "He
<i>lay</i> on the bed," and <i>lain</i> being its past participle
we must also say "He has <i>lain</i> on the bed."</p>
<p>We can say "I lay myself down." "He laid himself down" and such
expressions.</p>
<p>It is imperative to remember in using these verbs that to
<i>lay</i> means <i>to do</i> something, and to lie means <i>to be
in a state of rest</i>.</p>
<h3>SAYS I—I SAID</h3>
<p><i>"Says I"</i> is a vulgarism; don't use it. "I said" is
correct form.</p>
<h3>IN—INTO</h3>
<p>Be careful to distinguish the meaning of these two little
prepositions and don't interchange them. Don't say "He went
<i>in</i> the room" nor "My brother is <i>into</i> the navy."
<i>In</i> denotes the place where a person or thing, whether at
rest or in motion, is present; and <i>into</i> denotes
<i>entrance</i>. "He went <i>into</i> the room;" "My brother is
<i>in</i> the navy" are correct.</p>
<h3>EAT—ATE</h3>
<p>Don't confound the two. <i>Eat</i> is present, <i>ate</i> is
past. "I <i>eat</i> the bread" means that I am continuing the
eating; "I <i>ate</i> the bread" means that the act of eating is
past. <i>Eaten</i> is the perfect participle, but often <i>eat</i>
is used instead, and as it has the same pronunciation (et) of
<i>ate</i>, care should be taken to distinguish the past tense, I
<i>ate</i> from the perfect <i>I have eaten</i> (<i>eat</i>).</p>
<h3>SEQUENCE OF PERSON</h3>
<p>Remember that the <i>first</i> person takes precedence of the
<i>second</i> and the <i>second</i> takes precedence of the
<i>third</i>. When Cardinal Wolsey said <i>Ego et Rex</i> (I and
the King), he showed he was a good grammarian, but a bad
courtier.</p>
<h3>AM COME—HAVE COME</h3>
<p>"<i>I am come</i>" points to my being here, while "I have come"
intimates that I have just arrived. When the subject is not a
person, the verb <i>to be</i> should be used in preference to the
verb <i>to have</i>; as, "The box is come" instead of "The box has
come."</p>
<h3>PAST TENSE—PAST PARTICIPLE</h3>
<p>The interchange of these two parts of the irregular or so-called
<i>strong</i> verbs is, perhaps, the breach oftenest committed by
careless speakers and writers. To avoid mistakes it is requisite to
know the principal parts of these verbs, and this knowledge is very
easy of acquirement, as there are not more than a couple of hundred
of such verbs, and of this number but a small part is in daily use.
Here are some of the most common blunders: "I seen" for "I saw;" "I
done it" for "I did it;" "I drunk" for "I drank;" "I begun" for "I
began;" "I rung" for "I rang;" "I run" for "I ran;" "I sung" for "I
sang;" "I have chose" for "I have chosen;" "I have drove" for "I
have driven;" "I have wore" for "I have worn;" "I have trod" for "I
have trodden;" "I have shook" for "I have shaken;" "I have fell"
for "I have fallen;" "I have drank" for "I have drunk;" "I have
began" for "I have begun;" "I have rang" for "I have rung;" "I have
rose" for "I have risen;" "I have spoke" for "I have spoken;" "I
have broke" for "I have broken." "It has froze" for "It has
frozen." "It has blowed" for "It has blown." "It has flowed" (of a
bird) for "It has flown."</p>
<p>N. B.—The past tense and past participle of <i>To Hang</i>
is <i>hanged</i> or <i>hung</i>. When you are talking about a man
meeting death on the gallows, say "He was hanged"; when you are
talking about the carcass of an animal say, "It was hung," as "The
beef was hung dry." Also say your coat "<i>was</i> hung on a
hook."</p>
<h3>PREPOSITIONS AND THE OBJECTIVE CASE</h3>
<p>Don't forget that prepositions always take the objective case.
Don't say "Between you and <i>I</i>"; say "Between you and
<i>me</i>"</p>
<p><i>Two</i> prepositions should not govern <i>one objective</i>
unless there is an immediate connection between them. "He was
refused admission to and forcibly ejected from the school" should
be "He was refused admission to the school and forcibly ejected
from it."</p>
<h3>SUMMON—SUMMONS</h3>
<p>Don't say "I shall summons him," but "I shall summon him."
<i>Summon</i> is a verb, <i>summons</i>, a noun.</p>
<p>It is correct to say "I shall get a <i>summons</i> for him," not
a <i>summon</i>.</p>
<h3>UNDENIABLE—UNEXCEPTIONABLE</h3>
<p>"My brother has an undeniable character" is wrong if I wish to
convey the idea that he has a good character. The expression should
be in that case "My brother has an unexceptionable character." An
<i>undeniable</i> character is a character that cannot be denied,
whether bad or good. An unexceptionable character is one to which
no one can take exception.</p>
<h3>THE PRONOUNS</h3>
<p>Very many mistakes occur in the use of the pronouns. "Let you
and I go" should be "Let you and <i>me</i> go." "Let them and we
go" should be "Let them and us go." The verb let is transitive and
therefore takes the objective case.</p>
<p>"Give me <i>them</i> flowers" should be "Give me <i>those</i>
flowers"; "I mean <i>them</i> three" should be "I mean those
three." Them is the objective case of the personal pronoun and
cannot be used adjectively like the demonstrative adjective
pronoun. "I am as strong as <i>him</i>" should be "I am as strong
as <i>he</i>"; "I am younger than <i>her</i>" should be "I am
younger than <i>she</i>;" "He can write better than <i>me</i>"
should be "He can write better than I," for in these examples the
objective cases <i>him</i>, <i>her</i> and <i>me</i> are used
wrongfully for the nominatives. After each of the misapplied
pronouns a verb is understood of which each pronoun is the subject.
Thus, "I am as strong as he (is)." "I am younger than she (is)." "He
can write better than I (can)."</p>
<p>Don't say "<i>It is me</i>;" say "<i>It is I</i>" The verb <i>To
Be</i> of which is is a part takes the same case after it that it
has before it. This holds good in all situations as well as with
pronouns.</p>
<p>The verb <i>To Be</i> also requires the pronouns joined to it to
be in the same case as a pronoun asking a question; The nominative
<i>I</i> requires the nominative <i>who</i> and the objectives
<i>me</i>, <i>him</i>, <i>her</i>, <i>its</i>, <i>you</i>,
<i>them</i>, require the objective <i>whom</i>.</p>
<p>"<i>Whom</i> do you think I am?" should be "<i>Who</i> do you
think I am?" and "<i>Who</i> do they suppose me to be?" should be
"<i>Whom</i> do they suppose me to be?" The objective form of the
Relative should be always used, in connection with a preposition.
"Who do you take me for?" should be "<i>Whom</i> do, etc." "Who did
you give the apple to?" should be "Whom did you give the apple to,"
but as pointed out elsewhere the preposition should never end a
sentence, therefore, it is better to say, "To whom did you give the
apple?"</p>
<p>After transitive verbs always use the objective cases of the
pronouns. For "<i>He</i> and <i>they</i> we have seen," say
"<i>Him</i> and <i>them</i> we have seen."</p>
<h3>THAT FOR SO</h3>
<p>"The hurt it was that painful it made him cry," say "so
painful."</p>
<h3>THESE—THOSE</h3>
<p>Don't say, <i>These kind; those sort</i>. <i>Kind</i> and
<i>sort</i> are each singular and require the singular pronouns
<i>this</i> and <i>that</i>. In connection with these demonstrative
adjective pronouns remember that <i>this</i> and <i>these</i> refer
to what is near at hand, <i>that</i> and <i>those</i> to what is
more distant; as, <i>this book</i> (near me), <i>that book</i>
(over there), <i>these</i> boys (near), <i>those</i> boys (at a
distance).</p>
<h3>THIS MUCH—THUS MUCH</h3>
<p>"<i>This</i> much is certain" should be "<i>Thus</i> much or
<i>so</i> much is certain."</p>
<h3>FLEE—FLY</h3>
<p>These are two separate verbs and must not be interchanged. The
principal parts of <i>flee</i> are <i>flee</i>, <i>fled</i>,
<i>fled</i>; those of <i>fly</i> are <i>fly</i>, <i>flew</i>,
<i>flown</i>. <i>To flee</i> is generally used in the meaning of
getting out of danger. <i>To fly</i> means to soar as a bird. To
say of a man "He <i>has flown</i> from the place" is wrong; it
should be "He <i>has fled</i> from the place." We can say with
propriety that "A bird has <i>flown</i> from the place."</p>
<h3>THROUGH—THROUGHOUT</h3>
<p>Don't say "He is well known through the land," but "He is well
known throughout the land."</p>
<h3>VOCATION AND AVOCATION</h3>
<p>Don't mistake these two words so nearly alike. Vocation is the
employment, business or profession one follows for a living;
avocation is some pursuit or occupation which diverts the person
from such employment, business or profession. Thus</p>
<p>"His vocation was the law, his avocation, farming."</p>
<h3>WAS—WERE</h3>
<p>In the subjunctive mood the plural form <i>were</i> should be
used with a singular subject; as, "If I <i>were,</i>" not
<i>was</i>. Remember the plural form of the personal pronoun
<i>you</i> always takes <i>were</i>, though it may denote but one.
Thus, "<i>You were,</i>" never "<i>you was.</i>" "<i>If I was
him</i>" is a very common expression. Note the two mistakes in
it,—that of the verb implying a condition, and that of the
objective case of the pronoun. It should read <i>If I were he</i>.
This is another illustration of the rule regarding the verb <i>To
Be</i>, taking the same case after it as before it; <i>were</i> is
part of the verb <i>To Be</i>, therefore as the nominative (I) goes
before it, the nominative (he) should come after it.</p>
<h3>A OR AN</h3>
<p><i>A</i> becomes an before a vowel or before <i>h</i> mute for
the sake of euphony or agreeable sound to the ear. <i>An apple</i>,
<i>an orange</i>, <i>an heir</i>, <i>an honor</i>, etc.</p>
<center>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />