Plain Words

by Rebecca Gowers

  (8) Like. Colloquial English admits like as a conjunction, and would not be shocked by the sentence ‘Nothing succeeds like success does’, or by ‘It looked like he was going to succeed’. But in formal English prose neither of these will do: like must not be treated as a conjunction. So we may say ‘nothing succeeds like success’; but it must be ‘nothing succeeds as success does’ and ‘it looked as if he were going to succeed’.

  (9) Provided that. It is better to use this form to introduce a stipulation than provided without the that, and much better to use it than a bald providing. The phrase itself should be reserved for a true stipulation, as in:

  He said he would go to the meeting provided that I went with him.

  It should not be used loosely for if, as in:

  I expect he will come tomorrow, provided that he comes at all.

  Sometimes the misuse of provided that for if will obscure the meaning of a sentence and create difficulties for a reader:

  Such emoluments can only count as qualifying for pension provided that they cannot be converted into cash.

  This would have been clear with if.

  (10) Than. Writers can find themselves tempted to use than as a preposition, like but (see above), in a sentence such as ‘he is older than me’. Examples of this can be found in good writers, including a craftsman as scrupulous as Mr Somerset Maugham. Yet the OED observes that this is ‘considered incorrect’: it should be ‘he is older than I’ (i.e. ‘than I am’). We may say ‘I know more about her than him’ if what we mean is that my knowledge of her is greater than my knowledge of him. But if we mean that my knowledge of her is greater than his knowledge of her, we must say ‘I know more about her than he (does)’.

  Note. The OED’s warning stands to this day. But ‘he is older than I am’ (with the verb added at the end) now sounds a lot less starchy than ‘he is older than I’. ~

  A sole exception is recognised—whom. We must say than whom, and not ‘than who’, even though the only way of making grammatical sense of it is to regard than as a preposition. But that is rather a stilted way of writing, and can best be left to poetry, as when Milton remarks parenthetically of Beelzebub:

  than whom, Satan except, none higher sat …

  Be careful not to slip into using than with words that take a different construction. Other and else (and otherwise and elsewhere) are the only words besides comparatives that take than. Than is sometimes mistakenly used with such words as preferable and different, and is also sometimes used where a purist would prefer as:

  Nearly twice as many people die under 20 in France than in Great Britain, chiefly of tuberculosis.

  (11) That. The conjunctive that often leads the writer into error, especially in long sentences. This is not so much a matter of rule as of being careful:

  It was agreed that, since suitable accommodation was now available in a convenient position, and that a move to larger offices was therefore feasible, Treasury sanction should be sought for acquiring them.

  Here a superfluous that has slipped into the sentence. The first that was capable of doing all the work.*

  (12) When. It is sometimes confusing to use when as the equivalent of and then.

  Let me have full particulars when I will be able to advise you. (Please let me have full particulars. I shall then be able to advise you.)

  Alternatively the Minister may make the order himself when it has the same effect as if it has been made by the Local Authority. (Alternatively the Minister may make the order himself, and it then has the same effect …)

  (13) While. It is safest to use this conjunction only in its temporal sense (‘your letter came while I was away on leave’). That does not mean that it is wrong to use it also as a conjunction without any temporal sense, equivalent to although (‘while I do not agree with you, I accept your ruling’), but this can lead to ambiguities:

  While he is feeling unwell, he should impress the Panel with his charm.

  It should certainly not be used in these two different senses in the same sentence, as in:

  While appreciating your difficulties while your mother is ill …

  Moreover, once we leave the shelter of the temporal sense, we are on the road to treating while as a synonym for and:

  Nothing will be available for some time for the desired improvement, while the general supply of linoleum to new offices may have to cease when existing stocks run out.

  There is no point in saying while when you mean and. If you are too free with while you are sure sooner or later to land yourself in the absurdity of seeming to say that two events have occurred simultaneously that could not possibly have done so:

  The first part of the concert was conducted by Sir August Manns … while Sir Arthur Sullivan conducted his then recently composed Absent Minded Beggar.

  TROUBLES WITH NEGATIVES

  (1) Double negatives. It has long been settled doctrine among certain English grammarians that two negatives cancel each other and produce an affirmative. As in mathematics – (–x) equals +x, so in speech ‘he didn’t say nothing’ must be regarded as equivalent to he said something.

  It is going too far to say, as is sometimes said, that this proposition is self-evident. The ancient Greeks did not think that two negatives made an affirmative. On the contrary, the more negatives they put into a sentence, the more emphatically negative the sentence became. Nor did Chaucer think so. In a much-quoted passage, he wrote:

  He nevere yet no vileynye ne sayde

  In al his lyf unto no maner wight.

  He was a verray, parfit gentil knyght.

  Nor did Shakespeare, who made King Claudius say of Hamlet:

  Nor what he spake, though it lacked form a little,

  Was not like madness …

  Nor do the many thousands of people who find it natural today to deny knowledge by saying ‘I don’t know nothing’. And the comedian who sings ‘I ain’t going to give nobody none of mine’ is not misunderstood.* Jespersen, in his Essentials of English Grammar of 1933, notes that a speaker of this kind, ‘who wants the negative sense to be fully apprehended’, will attach it

  not only to the verb, but also to other parts of the sentence: he spreads, as it were, a thin layer of negative colouring over the whole of the sentence instead of confining it to one single place. This may be called pleonastic, but is certainly not really illogical.

  Still, the orthodox view continues to stand in formal English. Breaches of it are commonest with verbs of surprise or speculation (‘I shouldn’t wonder if there wasn’t a storm’; ‘I shouldn’t be surprised if he didn’t come today’). Indeed, this is so common that it is classed by Fowler as one of his ‘sturdy indefensibles’. A recent speech in the House of Lords affords a typical instance of the confusion of thought bred by double negatives:

  Let it not be supposed because we are building for the future rather than the present that the Bill’s proposals are not devoid of significance.

  What the speaker meant, of course, was ‘Let it not be supposed that the Bill’s proposals are devoid of significance’. Another example is:

  There is no reason to doubt that what he says in his statement … is not true.

  Here the speaker meant, ‘There is no reason to doubt that his statement is true’. And another:

  It must not be assumed that there are no circumstances in which a profit might not be made.

  Avoid multiple negatives when you can. Even if you dodge the traps they set and succeed in saying what you mean, you give your reader a puzzle to solve in sorting the negatives out. Indeed it is wise never to make a statement negatively if it could just as well be made positively. A correspondent sends me this:

  The elementary ideas of the calculus are not beyond the capacity of more than 40 per cent of our certificate students.

  He comments, ‘I am quite unable to say whether this assertion is that two-fifths or three-fifths of the class could make something of the ideas’. If the writer had said that the ideas were within the c
apacity of at least 60 per cent, all would have been clear. Here are two more examples of sentences that have to be unravelled before they yield any meaning:

  Few would now contend that too many checks cannot be at least as harmful to democracy as too few.

  The Opposition refused leave for the withdrawal of a motion to annul an Order revoking the embargo on the importation of cut glass.

  (2) Neither … nor. Some books tell you that neither … nor should not be used where there are more than two alternatives. But if you decide to ignore this advice as pedantry you will find on your side not only the translators of the Bible:

  neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God … (Romans 8:38–9)

  but also, though not quite so profusely, Sir Harold Nicolson:

  Neither Lord Davidson nor Sir Bernard Paget nor Mr Arthur Bryant will suffer permanently or seriously from the spectacle which they have provided. (Spectator, 1949)

  (3) Nor and or. When should nor be used and when or? If a neither or an either comes first there is no difficulty; neither is always followed by nor and either by or. There can be no doubt that it is wrong to write: ‘The existing position satisfies neither the psychologist, the judge, or the public’. It should have been ‘neither the psychologist, nor the judge, nor the public’. But when the initial negative is a simple not or no, it is often a puzzling question whether nor or or should follow. Logically it depends on whether the sentence is so framed that the initial negative runs on into the second part of it or is exhausted in the first. Practically, it may be of little importance which answer you give, for the meaning will be clear.

  He did not think that the Bill would be introduced this month, nor indeed before the recess.

  ‘He did not think’ affects everything that follows that. Logically therefore nor produces a double negative, as though one were to say ‘he didn’t think it wouldn’t be introduced before the recess’.

  The blame for this disorder does not rest with Parliament, or with the bishops, or with the parish priests. Our real weakness is the failure of the ordinary man.

  Here the negative phrase ‘does not rest’ is carried right through the sentence, and applies to the bishops and the parish priests as much as to Parliament. There is no need to repeat the negative, and or is logically right. But nor is so often used in such a construction that it would be pedantic to condemn it: if logical defence is needed one might say that ‘did he think it would be introduced’ in the first example and ‘does it rest’ in the second were understood as repeated after nor. By changing the framework of the sentence, it is a positive verb, rests, that runs through:

  The blame for this disorder rests not with Parliament nor with the bishops, nor with the parish priests, but with the ordinary man.

  The original negative (not) is attached not to the verb but to Parliament, and exhausts itself in exonerating Parliament. The negative must be repeated, and nor is rightly used.

  (4) Not all. It is idiomatic English, to which no exception can be taken, to write ‘All officials are not good at drafting legal documents’ when you mean that only some of them are (compare ‘All that glitters is not gold’). But it is clearer, and therefore better, to write ‘Not all officials are good at drafting legal documents’.

  (5) Not … but. It is also idiomatic English to write ‘I did not go to speak but to listen’. It is pedantry to insist that, because logic demands it, this ought to be ‘I went not to speak but to listen’. But if the latter way of arranging a ‘not … but’ sentence runs as easily and makes your meaning clearer, as it often may, it should be preferred.

  (6) Not … because. Not followed by because sometimes leads to ambiguity. ‘I did not write that letter because of what you told me’ may mean either ‘I refrained from writing that letter because of what you told me’ or ‘It was not because of what you told me that I wrote that letter’. Avoid this ambiguity by rewriting the sentence.

  TROUBLES WITH NUMBER

  The rule that a singular subject requires a singular verb, and a plural subject a plural verb, is an easy one to remember and generally to observe. But it has its difficulties.

  (1) Collective words

  In using collective words or nouns of multitude (department, parliament, government, committee and the like), ought we to say ‘the government have decided’ or ‘the government has decided’; ‘the committee are meeting’ or ‘the committee is meeting’? There is no rule. Either a singular or a plural verb may be used. The plural is more suitable when the emphasis is on the individual members, and the singular when it is on the body as a whole. ‘A committee was appointed to consider this subject’; ‘the committee were unable to agree’. Sometimes the need to use a pronoun settles the question. We cannot say ‘the committee differed among itself’, nor ‘the committee were of one mind when I sat on them’. But the number ought not to be varied in the same document without good cause. Accidentally changing it is a common form of carelessness:

  The firm has given an undertaking that in the event of their having to restrict production …

  The industry is capable of supplying all home requirements and have in fact been exporting.

  It will be for each committee to determine in the light of its responsibilities how far it is necessary to make all these appointments, and no appointment should be made unless the committee are fully satisfied of the need.

  Conversely, a subject plural in form may be given a singular verb if it signifies a single entity such as a country (‘the United States has agreed’) or an organisation (‘the United Nations has resolved’) or a measure (‘six miles is not too far’; ‘twelve months is a long time to wait’).

  Note. It is hard to argue against emphasising the singular when two people have just united in marriage, yet the following will probably strike most British readers as awkward: ‘A South Korean couple on its honeymoon was found alive and in good condition two decks below the waterline’ (New York Post). ~

  (2) Words linked by and

  To the elementary rule that two singular nouns linked by and should be given a plural verb, justifiable exceptions can be found where the linked words form a single idea. The stock example is taken from Kipling’s poem ‘Recessional’: ‘The tumult and the shouting dies’. The tumult and the shouting, it is explained, are equivalent to ‘the tumultuous shouting’. (Even if that were not true, the singular die would not have allowed for the rhyme with the line ‘Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice’, and rhyming poets must be allowed some licence.)

  Perhaps these official examples might be justified in the same way:

  Duration and charge was advised at the conclusion of the call.

  Your desire and need for a telephone service is fully appreciated.

  It might be argued that duration and charge were equivalent to ‘the appropriate charge for the duration’, and that your desire and need were equivalent to ‘the desire arising from your need’. But it is safer to observe the rule, and to leave these questionable experiments to the poets.

  Other instances of singular verbs with subjects linked by and cannot be so easily explained away. They are frequent when the verb comes first. Shakespeare has them (‘Is Bushy, Green, and the Earl of Wiltshire dead?’), and so have the translators of the Bible (‘Thine is the Kingdom, the power and the glory’). If we may never attribute mere carelessness to great writers, we must explain these by saying that the singular verb is more vivid, and should be understood as repeated with each noun – ‘Is Bushy, (is) Green, and (is) the Earl of Wiltshire dead?’ Those who like to have everything tidy may get some satisfaction from this, but writers of official English should forget about these refinements and stick to the simple rule.

  (3) Words linked by with

  In a sentence stating that ‘X with Y did such-and-such’, the subject is X alone. If X is singular, the verb should be
too: ‘The boss with his partners is responsible’; ‘The Secretary of State together with the Under-Secretary is coming’.

  (4) Alternative subjects

  Either and neither must always have a singular verb if the alternative subjects are singular. It is a very common error to write sentences like these:

  I am unable to trace that either of the items have been paid.

  Neither knowledge nor skill are needed.

  Have and are should be has and is. But where a plural subject is included, the verb should be plural:

  Neither knowledge nor sophisticated skills are needed.

  (5) Each

  When each is the subject of a sentence the verb is singular and so is any pronoun:

  Each man has a room to himself.

  When a plural noun or pronoun is the subject, with each in apposition, the verb is plural:

  They have a room each.

  (6) Attraction

  The verb must agree with the subject, and not allow itself to be attracted into the number of the complement. Modern authorities will not pass ‘the wages of sin is death’. The safe rule for the ordinary writer in such sentences is to regard what precedes the verb as the subject and what follows it as the complement, and so to write ‘the wages of sin are death’ and ‘death is the wages of sin’.

  A verb some way from its subject is sometimes lured away from its proper number by a noun closer to it, as in:

  We regret that assurances given us twelve months ago that a sufficient supply of suitable local labour would be available to meet our requirements has not been fulfilled. (Assurances … have not been fulfilled.)