CHAPTER X SUGGESTIONS How to Write What to Write Correct Speaking and Speakers

CHAPTER X

SUGGESTIONS

How to Write What to Write Correct Speaking and Speakers

Rules of grammar and rhetoric are good in their own place; their laws

must be observed in order to express thoughts and ideas in the right way

so that they shall convey a determinate sense and meaning in a pleasing

and acceptable manner. Hard and fast rules, however, can never make a

writer or author. That is the business of old Mother Nature and nothing

can take her place. If nature has not endowed a man with faculties to put

his ideas into proper composition he cannot do so. He may have no ideas

worthy the recording. If a person has not a thought to express, it cannot

be expressed. Something cannot be manufactured out of nothing. The author

must have thoughts and ideas before he can express them on paper. These

come to him by nature and environment and are developed and strengthened

by study. There is an old Latin quotation in regard to the poet which

says "Poeta nascitur non fit" the translation of which isthe poet is

born, not made. To a great degree the same applies to the author. Some

men are great scholars as far as book learning is concerned, yet they

cannot express themselves in passable composition. Their knowledge is

like gold locked up in a chest where it is of no value to themselves or

the rest of the world.

The best way to learn to write is to sit down and write, just as the best

way how to learn to ride a bicycle is to mount the wheel and pedal away.

Write first about common things, subjects that are familiar to you. Try

for instance an essay on a cat. Say something original about her. Don't

say "she is very playful when young but becomes grave as she grows old."

That has been said more than fifty thousand times before. Tell what you

have seen the family cat doing, how she caught a mouse in the garret and

what she did after catching it. Familiar themes are always the best for

the beginner. Don't attempt to describe a scene in Australia if you have

never been there and know nothing of the country. Never hunt for

subjects, there are thousands around you. Describe what you saw yesterday

a fire, a runaway horse, a dog-fight on the street and be original in

your description. Imitate the best writers in their  style , but not in

their exact words. Get out of the beaten path, make a pathway of your

own.

Know what you write about, write about what you know; this is a golden

rule to which you must adhere. To know you must study. The world is an

open book in which all who run may read. Nature is one great volume the

pages of which are open to the peasant as well as to the peer. Study

Nature's moods and tenses, for they are vastly more important than those

of the grammar. Book learning is most desirable, but, after all, it is

only theory and not practice. The grandest allegory in the English, in

fact, in any language, was written by an ignorant, so-called ignorant,

tinker named John Bunyan. Shakespeare was not a scholar in the sense we

regard the term to-day, yet no man ever lived or probably ever will live

that equalled or will equal him in the expression of thought. He simply

read the book of nature and interpreted it from the standpoint of his own

magnificent genius.

Don't imagine that a college education is necessary to success as a

writer. Far from it. Some of our college men are dead-heads, drones,

parasites on the body social, not alone useless to the world but to

themselves. A person may be so ornamental that he is valueless from any

other standpoint. As a general rule ornamental things serve but little

purpose. A man may know so much of everything that he knows little of

anything. This may sound paradoxical, but, nevertheless, experience

proves its truth.

If you are poor that is not a detriment but an advantage. Poverty is an

incentive to endeavor, not a drawback. Better to be born with a good,

working brain in your head than with a gold spoon in your mouth. If the

world had been depending on the so-called pets of fortune it would have

deteriorated long ago.

From the pits of poverty, from the arenas of suffering, from the hovels

of neglect, from the backwood cabins of obscurity, from the lanes and

by-ways of oppression, from the dingy garrets and basements of unending

toil and drudgery have come men and women who have made history, made the

world brighter, better, higher, holier for their existence in it, made of

it a place good to live in and worthy to die in,men and women who have

hallowed it by their footsteps and sanctified it with their presence and

in many cases consecrated it with their blood. Poverty is a blessing, not

an evil, a benison from the Father's hand if accepted in the right spirit.

Instead of retarding, it has elevated literature in all ages. Homer was a

blind beggarman singing his snatches of song for the dole of charity;

grand old Socrates, oracle of wisdom, many a day went without his dinner

because he had not the wherewithal to get it, while teaching the youth of

Athens. The divine Dante was nothing better than a beggar, houseless,

homeless, friendless, wandering through Italy while he composed his

immortal cantos. Milton, who in his blindness "looked where angels fear

to tread," was steeped in poverty while writing his sublime conception,

"Paradise Lost." Shakespeare was glad to hold and water the horses of

patrons outside the White Horse Theatre for a few pennies in order to buy

bread. Burns burst forth in never-dying song while guiding the ploughshare.

Poor Heinrich Heine, neglected and in poverty, from his "mattress grave"

of suffering in Paris added literary laurels to the wreath of his German

Fatherland. In America Elihu Burritt, while attending the anvil, made

himself a master of a score of languages and became the literary lion of

his age and country.

In other fields of endeavor poverty has been the spur to action. Napoleon

was born in obscurity, the son of a hand-to-mouth scrivener in the backward

island of Corsica. Abraham Lincoln, the boast and pride of America, the

man who made this land too hot for the feet of slaves, came from a log

cabin in the Ohio backwoods. So did James A. Garfield. Ulysses Grant came

from a tanyard to become the world's greatest general. Thomas A. Edison

commenced as a newsboy on a railway train.

The examples of these men are incentives to action. Poverty thrust them

forward instead of keeping them back. Therefore, if you are poor make

your circumstances a means to an end. Have ambition, keep a goal in sight

and bend every energy to reach that goal. A story is told of Thomas

Carlyle the day he attained the highest honor the literary world could

confer upon him when he was elected Lord Rector of Edinburgh University.

After his installation speech, in going through the halls, he met a

student seemingly deep in study. In his own peculiar, abrupt, crusty way

the Sage of Chelsea interrogated the young man: "For what profession are

you studying?" "I don't know," returned the youth. "You don't know,"

thundered Carlyle, "young man, you are a fool." Then he went on to

qualify his vehement remark, "My boy when I was your age, I was stooped

in grinding, gripping poverty in the little village of Ecclefechan, in

the wilds of [Transcriber's note: Part of word illegible]-frieshire,

where in all the place only the minister and myself could read the Bible,

yet poor and obscure as I was, in my mind's eye I saw a chair awaiting

for me in the Temple of Fame and day and night and night and day I

studied until I sat in that chair to-day as Lord Rector of Edinburgh

University."

Another Scotchman, Robert Buchanan, the famous novelist, set out for

London from Glasgow with but half-a-crown in his pocket. "Here goes,"

said he, "for a grave in Westminster Abbey." He was not much of a

scholar, but his ambition carried him on and he became one of the great

literary lions of the world's metropolis.

Henry M. Stanley was a poorhouse waif whose real name was John Rowlands.

He was brought up in a Welsh workhouse, but he had ambition, so he rose

to be a great explorer, a great writer, became a member of Parliament and

was knighted by the British Sovereign.

Have ambition to succeed and you will succeed. Cut the word "failure" out

of your lexicon. Don't acknowledge it. Remember

  "In life's earnest battle they only prevail

   Who daily march onward and never say fail."

Let every obstacle you encounter be but a stepping stone in the path of

onward progress to the goal of success.

If untoward circumstances surround you, resolve to overcome them. Bunyan

wrote the "Pilgrim's Progress" in Bedford jail on scraps of wrapping

paper while he was half starved on a diet of bread and water. That

unfortunate American genius, Edgar Allan Poe, wrote "The Raven," the most

wonderful conception as well as the most highly artistic poem in all

English literature, in a little cottage in the Fordham section of New

York while he was in the direst straits of want. Throughout all his short

and wonderfully brilliant career, poor Poe never had a dollar he could

call his own. Such, however, was both his fault and his misfortune and he

is a bad exemplar.

Don't think that the knowledge of a library of books is essential to

success as a writer. Often a multiplicity of books is confusing. Master a

few good books and master them well and you will have all that is

necessary. A great authority has said: "Beware of the man of one book,"

which means that a man of one book is a master of the craft. It is

claimed that a thorough knowledge of the Bible alone will make any person

a master of literature. Certain it is that the Bible and Shakespeare

constitute an epitome of the essentials of knowledge. Shakespeare

gathered the fruitage of all who went before him, he has sown the seeds

for all who shall ever come after him. He was the great intellectual

ocean whose waves touch the continents of all thought.

Books are cheap now-a-days, the greatest works, thanks to the printing

press, are within the reach of all, and the more you read, the better,

provided they are worth reading. Sometimes a man takes poison into his

system unconscious of the fact that it is poison, as in the case of

certain foods, and it is very hard to throw off its effects. Therefore,

be careful in your choice of reading matter. If you cannot afford a full

library, and as has been said, such is not necessary, select a few of the

great works of the master minds, assimilate and digest them, so that they

will be of advantage to your literary system. Elsewhere in this volume is

given a list of some of the world's masterpieces from which you can make

a selection.

Your brain is a storehouse, don't put useless furniture into it to crowd

it to the exclusion of what is useful. Lay up only the valuable and

serviceable kind which you can call into requisition at any moment.

As it is necessary to study the best authors in order to be a writer, so

it is necessary to study the best speakers in order to talk with

correctness and in good style. To talk rightly you must imitate the

masters of oral speech. Listen to the best conversationalists and how

they express themselves. Go to hear the leading lectures, speeches and

sermons. No need to imitate the gestures of elocution, it is nature, not

art, that makes the elocutionist and the orator. It is not  how  a

speaker expresses himself but the language which he uses and the manner

of its use which should interest you. Have you heard the present day

masters of speech? There have been past time masters but their tongues

are stilled in the dust of the grave, and you can only read their

eloquence now. You can, however, listen to the charm of the living. To

many of us voices still speak from the grave, voices to which we have

listened when fired with the divine essence of speech. Perhaps you have

hung with rapture on the words of Beecher and Talmage. Both thrilled the

souls of men and won countless thousands over to a living gospel. Both

were masters of words, they scattered the flowers of rhetoric on the

shrine of eloquence and hurled veritable bouquets at their audiences

which were eagerly seized by the latter and treasured in the storehouse

of memory. Both were scholars and philosophers, yet they were far surpassed

by Spurgeon, a plain man of the people with little or no claim to

education in the modern sense of the word. Spurgeon by his speech

attracted thousands to his Tabernacle. The Protestant and Catholic, Turk,

Jew and Mohammedan rushed to hear him and listened, entranced, to his

language. Such another was Dwight L. Moody, the greatest Evangelist the

world has ever known. Moody was not a man of learning; he commenced life

as a shoe salesman in Chicago, yet no man ever lived who drew such

audiences and so fascinated them with the spell of his speech. "Oh, that

was personal magnetism," you will say, but it was nothing of the kind. It

was the burning words that fell from the lips of these men, and the way,

the manner, the force with which they used those words that counted and

attracted the crowds to listen unto them. Personal magnetism or personal

appearance entered not as factors into their success. Indeed as far as

physique were concerned, some of them were handicapped. Spurgeon was a

short, podgy, fat little man, Moody was like a country farmer, Talmage in

his big cloak was one of the most slovenly of men and only Beecher was

passable in the way of refinement and gentlemanly bearing. Physical

appearance, as so many think, is not the sesame to the interest of an

audience. Daniel O'Connell, the Irish tribune, was a homely, ugly,

awkward, ungainly man, yet his words attracted millions to his side and

gained for him the hostile ear of the British Parliament, he was a master

of verbiage and knew just what to say to captivate his audiences.

It is words and their placing that count on almost all occasions. No

matter how refined in other respects the person may be, if he use words

wrongly and express himself in language not in accordance with a proper

construction, he will repel you, whereas the man who places his words

correctly and employs language in harmony with the laws of good speech,

let him be ever so humble, will attract and have an influence over you.

The good speaker, the correct speaker, is always able to command

attention and doors are thrown open to him which remain closed to others

not equipped with a like facility of expression. The man who can talk

well and to the point need never fear to go idle. He is required in

nearly every walk of life and field of human endeavor, the world wants

him at every turn. Employers are constantly on the lookout for good

talkers, those who are able to attract the public and convince others by

the force of their language. A man may be able, educated, refined, of

unblemished character, nevertheless if he lack the power to express

himself, put forth his views in good and appropriate speech he has to

take a back seat, while some one with much less ability gets the

opportunity to come to the front because he can clothe his ideas in ready

words and talk effectively.

You may again say that nature, not art, makes a man a fluent speaker; to

a great degree this is true, but it is  art  that makes him a  correct 

speaker, and correctness leads to fluency. It is possible for everyone to

become a correct speaker if he will but persevere and take a little pains

and care.

At the risk of repetition good advice may be here emphasized: Listen to

the best speakers and note carefully the words which impress you most.

Keep a notebook and jot down words, phrases, sentences that are in any

way striking or out of the ordinary run. If you do not understand the

exact meaning of a word you have heard, look it up in the dictionary.

There are many words, called synonyms, which have almost a like

signification, nevertheless, when examined they express different shades

of meaning and in some cases, instead of being close related, are widely

divergent. Beware of such words, find their exact meaning and learn to

use them in their right places.

Be open to criticism, don't resent it but rather invite it and look upon

those as friends who point out your defects in order that you may remedy

them.

�%�$ t�� ��� -align:justify'> 

Keep long parentheses out of the middle of your sentences and when you

have apparently brought your sentences to a close don't try to continue

the thought or idea by adding supplementary clauses.

STRENGTH

 Strength  is that property of style which gives animation, energy and

vivacity to language and sustains the interest of the reader. It is as

necessary to language as good food is to the body. Without it the words

are weak and feeble and create little or no impression on the mind. In

order to have strength the language must be concise, that is, much

expressed in little compass, you must hit the nail fairly on the head and

drive it in straight. Go critically over what you write and strike out

every word, phrase and clause the omission of which impairs neither the

clearness nor force of the sentence and so avoid redundancy, tautology

and circumlocution. Give the most important words the most prominent

places, which, as has been pointed out elsewhere, are the beginning and

end of the sentence.

HARMONY

 Harmony  is that property of style which gives a smoothness to the

sentence, so that when the words are sounded their connection becomes

pleasing to the ear. It adapts sound to sense. Most people construct

their sentences without giving thought to the way they will sound and as

a consequence we have many jarring and discordant combinations such as

"Thou strengthenedst thy position and actedst arbitrarily and

derogatorily to my interests."

Harsh, disagreeable verbs are liable to occur with the Quaker form  Thou 

of the personal pronoun. This form is now nearly obsolete, the plural

 you  being almost universally used. To obtain harmony in the sentence

long words that are hard to pronounce and combinations of letters of one

kind should be avoided.

EXPRESSIVE OF WRITER

Style is expressive of the writer, as to who he is and what he is. As a

matter of structure in composition it is the indication of what a man can

do; as a matter of quality it is an indication of what he is.

KINDS OF STYLE

Style has been classified in different ways, but it admits of so many

designations that it is very hard to enumerate a table. In fact there are

as many styles as there are writers, for no two authors write  exactly 

after the same form. However, we may classify the styles of the various

authors in broad divisions as (1) dry, (2) plain, (3) neat, (4) elegant,

(5) florid, (6) bombastic.

The  dry  style excludes all ornament and makes no effort to appeal to

any sense of beauty. Its object is simply to express the thoughts in a

correct manner. This style is exemplified by Berkeley.

The  plain  style does not seek ornamentation either, but aims to make

clear and concise statements without any elaboration or embellishment.

Locke and Whately illustrate the plain style.

The  neat  style only aspires after ornament sparingly. Its object is to

have correct figures, pure diction and clear and harmonious sentences.

Goldsmith and Gray are the acknowledged leaders in this kind of style.

The  elegant  style uses every ornament that can beautify and avoids

every excess which would degrade. Macaulay and Addison have been

enthroned as the kings of this style. To them all writers bend the knee

in homage.

The  florid  style goes to excess in superfluous and superficial

ornamentation and strains after a highly colored imagery. The poems of

Ossian typify this style.

The  bombastic  is characterized by such an excess of words, figures and

ornaments as to be ridiculous and disgusting. It is like a circus clown

dressed up in gold tinsel Dickens gives a fine example of it in Sergeant

Buzfuz' speech in the "Pickwick Papers." Among other varieties of style

may be mentioned the colloquial, the laconic, the concise, the diffuse,

the abrupt the flowing, the quaint, the epigrammatic, the flowery, the

feeble, the nervous, the vehement, and the affected. The manner of these

is sufficiently indicated by the adjective used to describe them.

In fact style is as various as character and expresses the individuality

of the writer, or in other words, as the French writer Buffon very aptly

remarks, "the style is the man himself."

�-pn�� ��� re style='text-align:justify'>RISE-RAISE

These verbs are very often confounded.  Rise  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."

 Raise  is to lift up, to exalt, to enhance, as "I raise the table;"

"He raised his servant;" "The baker raised the price of  bread ."

LAY-LIE

The transitive verb  lay , and  lay , the past tense of the neuter verb

 lie , are often confounded, though quite different in meaning. The

neuter verb  to lie , meaning to lie down or rest, cannot take the

objective after it except with a preposition. We can say "He  lies  on

the ground," but we cannot say "He  lies  the ground," since the verb is

neuter and intransitive and, as such, cannot have a direct object. With

 lay  it is different.  Lay  is a transitive verb, therefore it takes a

direct object after it; as "I  lay  a wager," "I  laid  the carpet," etc.

Of a carpet or any inanimate subject we should say, "It lies on the

floor," "A knife  lies  on the table," not  lays . But of a person we

say"He  lays  the knife on the table," not "He  lies ."  Lay  being

the past tense of the neuter to lie (down) we should say, "He  lay  on

the bed," and  lain  being its past participle we must also say "He has

 lain  on the bed."

We can say "I lay myself down." "He laid himself down" and such

expressions.

It is imperative to remember in using these verbs that to  lay  means  to

do  something, and to lie means  to be in a state of rest .

SAYS II SAID

 "Says I"  is a vulgarism; don't use it. "I said" is correct form.

ININTO

Be careful to distinguish the meaning of these two little prepositions

and don't interchange them. Don't say "He went  in  the room" nor "My

brother is  into  the navy."  In  denotes the place where a person or

thing, whether at rest or in motion, is present; and  into  denotes

 entrance . "He went  into  the room;" "My brother is  in  the navy" are

correct.

EATATE

Don't confound the two.  Eat  is present,  ate  is past. "I  eat  the

bread" means that I am continuing the eating; "I  ate  the bread" means

that the act of eating is past.  Eaten  is the perfect participle, but

often  eat  is used instead, and as it has the same pronunciation (et) of

 ate , care should be taken to distinguish the past tense, I  ate  from

the perfect  I have eaten  ( eat ).

SEQUENCE OF PERSON

Remember that the  first  person takes precedence of the  second  and the

 second  takes precedence of the  third . When Cardinal Wolsey said  Ego

et Rex  (I and the King), he showed he was a good grammarian, but a bad

courtier.

AM COMEHAVE COME

" I am come " points to my being here, while "I have come" intimates that

I have just arrived. When the subject is not a person, the verb  to be 

should be used in preference to the verb  to have ; as, "The box is come"

instead of "The box has come."

PAST TENSEPAST PARTICIPLE

The interchange of these two parts of the irregular or so-called  strong 

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."

N. B.The past tense and past participle of  To Hang  is  hanged  or

 hung . 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 " was 

hung on a hook."

PREPOSITIONS AND THE OBJECTIVE CASE

Don't forget that prepositions always take the objective case. Don't say

"Between you and  I "; say "Between you and  me "

 Two  prepositions should not govern  one objective  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."

SUMMONSUMMONS

Don't say "I shall summons him," but "I shall summon him."  Summon  is a

verb,  summons , a noun.

It is correct to say "I shall get a  summons  for him," not a  summon .

UNDENIABLEUNEXCEPTIONABLE

"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  undeniable  character

is a character that cannot be denied, whether bad or good. An

unexceptionable character is one to which no one can take exception.

THE PRONOUNS

Very many mistakes occur in the use of the pronouns. "Let you and I go"

should be "Let you and  me  go." "Let them and we go" should be "Let them

and us go." The verb let is transitive and therefore takes the objective

case.

"Give me  them  flowers" should be "Give me  those  flowers"; "I mean

 them  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  him " should be "I

am as strong as  he "; "I am younger than  her " should be "I am younger

than  she ;" "He can write better than  me " should be "He can write

better than I," for in these examples the objective cases  him ,  her 

and  me  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)."

Don't say " It is me ;" say " It is I " The verb  To Be  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.

The verb  To Be  also requires the pronouns joined to it to be in the

same case as a pronoun asking a question; The nominative  I  requires the

nominative  who  and the objectives  me ,  him ,  her ,  its ,  you ,

 them , require the objective  whom .

" Whom  do you think I am?" should be " Who  do you think I am?" and

" Who  do they suppose me to be?" should be " Whom  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

" Whom  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?"

After transitive verbs always use the objective cases of the pronouns.

For " He  and  they  we have seen," say " Him  and  them  we have seen."

THAT FOR SO

"The hurt it was that painful it made him cry," say "so painful."

THESETHOSE

Don't say,  These kind; those sort .  Kind  and  sort  are each singular

and require the singular pronouns  this  and  that . In connection with

these demonstrative adjective pronouns remember that  this  and  these 

refer to what is near at hand,  that  and  those  to what is more

distant; as,  this book  (near me),  that book  (over there),  these 

boys (near),  those  boys (at a distance).

THIS MUCHTHUS MUCH

" This  much is certain" should be " Thus  much or  so  much is certain."

FLEEFLY

These are two separate verbs and must not be interchanged. The principal

parts of  flee  are  flee ,  fled ,  fled ; those of  fly  are  fly ,

 flew ,  flown .  To flee  is generally used in the meaning of getting

out of danger.  To fly  means to soar as a bird. To say of a man "He  has

flown  from the place" is wrong; it should be "He  has fled  from the

place." We can say with propriety that "A bird has  flown  from the

place."

THROUGHTHROUGHOUT

Don't say "He is well known through the land," but "He is well known

throughout the land."

VOCATION AND AVOCATION

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

"His vocation was the law, his avocation, farming."

WASWERE

In the subjunctive mood the plural form  were  should be used with a

singular subject; as, "If I  were ," not  was . Remember the plural form

of the personal pronoun  you  always takes  were , though it may denote

but one. Thus, " You were ," never " you was ." " If I was him " 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  If I were he . This is another illustration of the rule

regarding the verb  To Be , taking the same case after it as before it;

 were  is part of the verb  To Be , therefore as the nominative (I) goes

before it, the nominative (he) should come after it.

A OR AN

 A  becomes an before a vowel or before  h  mute for the sake of euphony

or agreeable sound to the ear.  An apple ,  an orange ,  an heir ,  an

honor , etc.