Page:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf/79

Very little comment will be needed; we have only to convince readers that mistakes are common, and caution therefore necessary.

I. The copula should always agree with the subject, not with the complement. These are wrong:

The pages which describe how the 34th Osaka Regiment wiped out the tradition that had survived since the Saigo rebellion is a typical piece of description.—Times.

A boy dressed up as a girl and a girl dressed up as a girl is, to the eye at least, the same thing.—Times.

People do not believe now as they did, but the moral inconsistencies of our contemporaries is no proof thereof.—Daily Telegraph.

It must be remembered that in questions the subject often comes after the verb and the complement before it; but the same rule must be kept. E. g., if the last example were put as a question instead of as a negative statement, 'What proof is the inconsistencies?' would be wrong, and 'What proof are &c.?' right.

Some sentences in which the subject contains only, a superlative, &c., have the peculiarity that subject and complement may almost be considered to have changed places; and this defence would probably be put in for the next three examples; but, whether actually wrong or not, they are unpleasant. The noun that stands before the verb should be regarded as the subject, and the verb be adapted to it.

The only thing Siamese about the Consul, except the hatchment and the flag, were his servants.—Sladen.

The only difficulty in Finnish are the changes undergone by the stem.—Sweet.

The most pompous monument of Egyptian greatness, and one of the most bulky works of manual industry, are the pyramids.—Johnson.

The next example is a curious problem; the subject to