properly a masculine word; but we may say, "Their doctor, Miss L. Jones, has treated the case very skilfully." Double forms, like poet, poetess, may both be applied to a woman, with a difference of meaning. "Mrs E. B. Browning is the best poet of those mentioned in this chapter,” compares her with men as well as women. "Mrs Browning is the best poetess yet discussed," compares her with women only.

Mistakes occur in the gender of foreign words. In "This girl is Mrs Smith's protégé," the French word, if used at all, should be protégée. So with adjectives. In "Mr Ritchie is invicta on grass courts this season,” the Latin adjective should be masculine, invictus.

ADJECTIVES: COMPARISON. The comparative is properly used of two, the superlative of more than two. But there is good authority for constructions like "John is the best of the two"; "Who is first of the two?"

The same meaning may be expressed by the comparative and the superlative. "Mont Blanc is higher than any other peak of the Alps," (or "than all the other peaks") is equivalent to “Mont Blanc is the highest of all the peaks." But these constructions must not be mixed. If other is omitted with the comparative, Mont Blanc is declared to be higher than all the peaks including itself. If other is inserted with the superlative, Mont Blanc is represented as the highest, not of all, but of the other peaks, itself excluded. Suppose, however, A, B, C, D, etc. are objects arranged in order of size; then, while we say "A is the largest of all," we may add, and add correctly, "B is the largest of the others." "The biggest circulation of any newspaper outside London" has been objected to as wrong, but it is sanctioned by good authority.

ADJECTIVE OR ADVERB? Sometimes, as in "The coin rings truly," an adverb is incorrectly used as complement instead of an adjective. Either adverb or adjective may be correct, but with a difference of meaning. "He looked wise means "had the appearance of a wise man": "He wisely looked under the stone">

means "acted wisely in looking." Certain adjectives and adverbs are identical in form, as hard, fast, much; but these are few in number. "He speaks indifferent well" is wrong.

PLURAL ADJECTIVES. Do not write those sort, these sort. Sort is singular, not plural.

PRONOUNS GENDER. A strict distinction is now made between the relatives who and which: who, masculine or feminine; which, neuter. That is of all genders.

The higher animals, especially when one is particularized, are referred to by he, she, who; the lower animals by it, which. "She was more silent than the dog, who leaped ahead with joyful barks"; "The worm which we saw has now crawled out of sight." Sometimes sex is disregarded: any horse, for example, is called "he," any cat, "she.”

In referring to personified objects, use he, she, who. "France has recovered her old superiority in that department"; "For him Oxford Street herself, whom the immortal Opium-eater hath so direly apostrophised, is not a more careless and stony-hearted mother."

It should not be used along with he or she in reference to animals; as occurs in "When a cat is angry, its back goes up and she spits fiercely."

Whose may refer to inanimate objects; but, if possible, say of which. "There was the mill, whose lights already twinkled through the bush": change to "the lights of which."

PRONOUNS NUMBER. Do not apply thou and you to the same person in the same passage; as Thackeray does in "So, as thy sun rises, friend, over the humble housetops round about your home, shall you wake many and many a day to duty and labour."

The editorial we should rarely be used, and never in sentences like "As a boy, we paid a visit to Cornwall."

When a singular word indicates not an individual but a class, do not refer to it by they their, them: as "The lion is the king of beasts. They are found in Africa and India.”

PRONOUNS CASE. : After as, than, the nominative, or the objective, is right according to the sense. "You praise him as much as I," i.e. "as much as I praise him"; but "You praise him as much as me," i.e. "as much as you praise me." "You are

as clever as him" is wrong: it should read "as he," i.e. "as he is clever." There is, however, one idiom where than seems to govern the objective. "The Emperor Joseph, than whom few have more narrowly missed greatness, made a desperate effort to set matters right." In this construction than who is never found. If anyone objects to than whom, the construction may be varied. Instead of "The Prince, than whom none fought more bravely," say "who fought as bravely as the others," or "whom none surpassed in bravery."

With pronouns the rules of syntax are often violated. The objective is wrong in "It is him," "It is us." "It is me," however, is regular in familiar talk and has good authority in dialogue. But in higher styles we must say "It is I."

The objective in "It will be given to whomsoever arrives first,' is incorrect; for the indefinite relative is the subject of arrives. A very common error appears in "Between you and I": between should have the objective me.

The colloquial "Who is that for?" is allowable in dialogue, where "Whom is that for?" or "For whom is that?" would be too formal.

"None but he," "All but he" are very common and well authorized.

In "Whom do you think they are?" the interrogative, being the complement of are, should be who. In "The revelations came from men whom he felt were his inferiors," the relative, being the subject of were, should be who. In both sentences the pronouns are wrongly regarded as governed by the nearest verbs. The next example is interesting. "He now saw the Prince, whom he believed would in a few months be king of England and who might very easily have been had he been properly supported." The relatives should both be nominatives, but the proximity of believed led the writer to use whom.

THE RELATIVES WHO, WHICH, THAT. The proper function of that is to introduce a restrictive clause, i.e. one restricting, defining, limiting the application of the antecedent; as "This is the house that Jack built." Who and which are also used to restrict; as "There is the man who showed us the way." When the antecedent requires no restriction, the clause is introduced by who or which; as "The gardener's cottage, which you admired so much, has been burned down."

With proper names, requiring no restriction, always use who or which, not that; as "The Duke of Bedford, who had returned to France, took command of the forces."

If the antecedent indicates a person, a restrictive clause, as a rule, begins with who rather than that. Note also he who, those who, instead of he that, they or them that.

That is regularly found in the following instances:

(1) after a superlative: "He was the holiest hermit that ever wore beard";

(2) after only: "That is the only boat that sails today";
(3) after all: "Name all the men that seem suitable" ;
(4) after any: "Any book that you have will help";

(5) after negatives: "We did not see one workman in ten that had not lost a finger";

(6) after the periphrases it is, it was: "It is chalk that gives the water this peculiarity."

Where two clauses, one restrictive, one not restrictive, refer to the same antecedent, it makes for clearness to vary the relatives; as, "It is chalk, which abounds in the district, that gives the water this peculiarity"; "Let us recall Helvetius's saying that I have already quoted, which made so deep an impression on Jeremy Bentham."

Relative clauses joined by co-ordinating conjunctions must refer to the same antecedent, and must be of the same kind, ¿.e. all restrictive, or all not restrictive. For the sake of clearness, they should, if possible, begin with the same relative-who... who, or which...which, or that...that. In "We next passed the garden, which was surrounded by a wall and which was only

three feet high," omit and, since the clauses have different antecedents. In "The peace which was now made, and which is known as the Peace of Westphalia, made important changes in Europe," omit and, since the first clause is restrictive, the other not. For clearness, replace which in the first clause by that. In a series of co-ordinate relative clauses, it is often sufficient to have the relative in the first clause only.

"The man we spoke to yesterday is coming down the hill,” shows a common omission of the relative. Modern usage allows this only when the relative would be in the objective, and when its clause is restrictive.

A noun in the possessive, or a possessive pronoun, is no longer usual as an antecedent. "The soldiers' tents, who had returned utterly exhausted, were flooded with water”; read “tents of the soldiers, who."

When such is the antecedent, or qualifies it, as must be the relative: "Read such books as you have." Such who, and the man as are wrong.

Do not co-ordinate a relative clause with a clause containing a demonstrative pronoun. "They were now nearing the house in which their father had been born but they themselves had never seen it" read "but which they themselves had never seen."

AND WHO AND WHICH. Co-ordinate clauses joined by and have been already discussed (p. 7). But this question faces us: Should and who, and which ever appear without a relative clause preceding? Some authorities reject every construction like “A thoroughly honest man and whose word has never been doubted is what we need" or "A man of sterling honesty and whose word" etc. They would insert man or one before whose; or else change to "A man who is thoroughly honest and whose word " etc. Other authorities allow this combination, but only when the qualifying word or phrase and the relative clause are really co-ordinate, i.e. qualifiers of the same value, either both restrictive, or both not restrictive. They would allow "Louis Blanc, then living in brave and honourable exile in London, and who was really a literary Jacobin to the tips of his fingers, remonstrated."