diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:39:48 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:39:48 -0700 |
| commit | 82a51b64b808427e6fca3a50bacb6bc03060ec85 (patch) | |
| tree | c84770d42527572a04692144a1bf2dabb4ff8048 /12390-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '12390-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 12390-h/12390-h.htm | 829 |
1 files changed, 829 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/12390-h/12390-h.htm b/12390-h/12390-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bdf5e14 --- /dev/null +++ b/12390-h/12390-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,829 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"> +<title>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Society for Pure English Tract No. III +</title> +<style type="text/css"> + <!-- + P { text-indent: 1em; + text-align: justify; + margin-right: 5%; + margin-left: 5%;} + H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6 { text-align: center; } + HR { width: 33%; } + BLOCKQUOTE { margin-right: 25%; margin-left: 25%;} + .SIG {text-align: right;} + .transcriberNote {margin-right:10%; + margin-left:10%; + text-indent:0em; + font-size:80%; + text-align: center;} + // --> +</style> +</head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12390 ***</div> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<h1> + S. P. E +</h1> + +<h2> +<i>Tract No. III</i> +</h2> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2> + A FEW PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS +</h2> + +<h2> +<b>By Logan Pearsall Smith </b> +</h2> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h3> + MDCCCCXX +</h3> + + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<hr> + + +<h3> + EDITORIAL<br /> + CO-OPERATION OF MEMBERS, ETC.<br /> + REPORT TO EASTER, 1920 +</h3> + + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2> + A FEW PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS +</h2> + +<p> +The principles of the Society for Pure English were stated in general +terms in its preliminary pamphlet; since, however, many questions have +been asked about the application of these principles, a few suggestions +about special points may be found useful. The Society does not attempt to +dictate to its members; it does, however, put forward its suggestions as +worthy of serious consideration; and, since they have received the +approval of the best scientific judgement, it is hoped that they will be +generally acceptable. +</p> +<p> +Some of them, when blankly stated, may seem trivial and unimportant; but +we neither expect nor desire to make any sudden and revolutionary changes. +A language is an established means of communication, sanctioned by the +general consent, and cannot be transformed at will. Language is, however, +of itself always changing, and if there is hesitation between current +usages, then choice becomes possible, and individuals may intervene with +good effect; for only by their preferences can the points in dispute be +finally settled. It is important, therefore, that these preferences should +be guided by right knowledge, and it is this right knowledge which the +Society makes it its aim to provide. While, therefore, any particular +ruling may seem unimportant, the principle on which that ruling is based +is not so; and its application in any special case will help to give it +authority and force. The effect of even a small number of successful +interventions will be to confirm right habits of choice, which may then, +as new opportunities arise, be applied to further cases. Among the cases +of linguistic usage which are varying and unfixed at the present time, and +in which therefore a deliberate choice is possible, the following may be +mentioned: +</p> +<h3> +I. <i>The Naturalization of Foreign Words</i>. +</h3> +<p> +There is no point on which usage is more uncertain and fluctuating than in +regard to the words which we are always borrowing from foreign languages. +Expression generally lags behind thought, and we are now more than ever +handicapped by the lack of convenient terms to describe the new +discoveries, and new ways of thinking and feeling by which our lives are +enriched and made interesting. It has been our national custom in the past +to eke out our native resources by borrowing from other languages, +especially from French, any words which we found ready to our needs; and +until recent times, these words were soon made current and convenient by +being assimilated and given English shapes and sounds. We still borrow as +freely as ever; but half the benefit of this borrowing is lost to us, +owing to our modern and pedantic attempts to preserve the foreign sounds +and shapes of imported words, which make their current use unnecessarily +difficult. Owing to our false taste in this matter many words which have +been long naturalized in the language are being now put back into their +foreign forms, and our speech is being thus gradually impoverished. This +process of de-assimilation generally begins with the restoration of +foreign accents to such words as have them in French; thus +‘role’ is now +written ‘rôle’<a href="#role">*</a>; ‘debris’, ‘débris’; ‘detour’, ‘détour’; ‘depot’, +‘dépôt’; and the old words long established in our language, ‘levee’, ‘naivety’, now appear as ‘levée’, and ‘naïveté’. The next step is to +italicize these words, thus treating them as complete aliens, and thus we +often see <i>rôle</i>, <i>dépôt</i>, &c. The very old English word ‘rendezvous’ is +now printed <i>rendezvous</i>, and ‘dilettante’ and ‘vogue’ sometimes are +printed in italics. Among other words which have been borrowed at various +times and more or less naturalized, but which are now being driven out of +the language, are the following: confrere, congee, cortege, dishabille, +distrait, ensemble, fête, flair, mellay (now <i>mêlée</i>), nonchalance, +provenance, renconter, &c. On the other hand, it is satisfactory to note +that ‘employee’ appears to be taking the place of ‘employé’. +</p> +<!-- Transcriber's Note: the original note for the asterisked words was "For the words marked with an asterisk see notes on page 10." It was removed for clarity in the HTML presentation. --> +<p> +The printing in italics and the restoration of foreign accents is +accompanied by awkward attempts to revert to the foreign pronunciation of +these words, which of course much lessens their usefulness in +conversation. Sometimes this, as in <i>nuance</i>, or <i>timbre</i><a href="#timbre">*</a> practically +deprives us of a word which most of us are unable to pronounce correctly; +sometimes it is merely absurd, as in ‘envelope’, where most people try to +give a foreign sound to a word which no one regards as an alien, and which +has been anglicized in spelling for nearly two hundred years. +</p> +<p> +Members of our Society will, we hope, do what is in their power to stop +this process of impoverishment, by writing and pronouncing as English such +words as have already been naturalized, and when a new borrowing appears +in two forms they will give their preference to the one which is most +English. There are some who may even help to enrich the language by a +bolder conquest of useful terms, and although they may suffer ridicule, +they will suffer it in a good cause, and will only be sharing the +short-lived denunciation which former innovators incurred when they +borrowed so many concise and useful terms from France and Italy to enlarge +and adorn our English speech. If we are to use foreign words (and, if we +have no equivalents, we must use them) it is certainly much better that +they should be incorporated in our language, and made available for common +use. Words like ‘garage’ and ‘nuance’ and ‘naivety’ had much better be +pronounced and written as English words, and there are others, like +‘bouleverse’ and ‘bouleversement’, whose partial borrowing might well be +made complete; and a useful word like <i>malaise</i> could with advantage +reassume the old form ‘malease’ which it once possessed. +</p> +<h3> +II. <i>Alien Plurals</i>. +</h3> +<p> +The useless and pedantic process of de-assimilation takes other forms, one +of the most common of which is the restoring their foreign plural forms to +words borrowed from Greek, Latin, and Italian. No common noun is genuinely +assimilated into our language and made available for the use of the whole +community until it has an English plural, and thousands of indispensable +words have been thus incorporated. We no longer write of <i>ideæ</i>, <i>chori</i>, +<i>asyla</i>, <i>musea</i>, <i>sphinges</i>, <i>specimina</i> for <i>ideas</i>, <i>choruses</i>, +<i>asylums</i>, <i>museums</i>, <i>sphinxes</i>, <i>specimens</i>, and the notion of returning +to such plurals would seem barbarous and absurd. And yet this very process +is now going on, and threatens us with deplorable results. <i>Sanatoria</i>, +<i>memoranda</i>, <i>gymnasia</i> are now replacing <i>sanatorium</i>, <i>memorandums</i>, and +<i>gymnasiums</i>; <i>automata</i>, <i>formulae</i>, and <i>lacunae</i> are taking the place +of <i>automatons</i>, <i>formulas</i>, and <i>lacunas</i>; <i>indices</i> and <i>apices</i> of +<i>indexes</i> and <i>apexes</i>, <i>miasmata</i> of <i>miasmas</i> or <i>miasms</i>; and even +forms like <i>lexica</i>, <i>rhododendra</i>, and <i>chimeræ</i> have been recently noted +in the writings of authors of repute. +</p> +<p> +Some of these words are no doubt exceptions. <i>Memoranda</i> is preferable +when used collectively, but the English plural is better in such a phrase +as ‘two different memorandums’. <i>Automata</i>, too, is sometimes collective; +and <i>lacuna</i> always carries the suggestion of its classical meaning, which +makes half the meaning of the word. So again, when the classical form is a +scientific term, it is convenient and well to preserve its differentiation, +e.g. <i>formulae</i> in science, or <i>foci</i> and <i>indices</i> in mathematics; but +such uses create exceptions, and these should be recognized as exceptions, +to a general rule that wherever there is choice then the English form is +to be preferred: we should, for instance, say <i>bandits</i> and not <i>banditti</i>. +</p> +<h3> +III. <i>ae</i> and <i>oe</i>. +</h3> +<p> +The use of <i>ae</i> and <i>oe</i> in English words of classical origin was a +pedantic innovation of the sixteenth century: in most words of common use +<i>ae</i> and <i>oe</i> have been replaced by the simple <i>e</i>, and we no longer write +<i>prævious</i>, <i>æternal</i>, <i>æra</i>, <i>æmulate</i>, <i>cœlestial</i>, <i>œconomy</i>, &c. +Since, however, those forms have a learned appearance, they are being now +restored in many words which had been freed from them; <i>medieval</i> is +commonly written <i>mediæval</i>; <i>primæval</i> and <i>co-æval</i> are beginning to +make their appearance; <i>peony</i> is commonly written <i>pæony</i>, and the forms +<i>sæcular</i>, <i>chimæra</i>, <i>hyæna</i>[<a href="#note-1">1</a>] and <i>præternatural</i> have recently been +noted. As this is more than a mere change in orthography, being in fact a +part of the process of de-assimilation, members of our Society would do +well to avoid the use of the archaic forms in all words which have become +thoroughly English, and which are used without thought of their etymology. +The matter is not so simple with regard to words of Latin or Greek +derivation which are only understood by most people through their +etymology; and for these it may be well to keep their etymologically +transparent spelling, as <i>ætiology</i>, <i>œstrus</i>, &c. Whether learned +words of this kind, and classical names such as <i>Cæsar</i>, <i>Æschylus</i>, &c., +should be spelt with vowels ligatured or divided (<i>Caesar</i>, <i>Aeschylus</i>), +is a point about which present usage varies; and that usage does not +always represent the taste of the writers who employ it. Mr. Horace Hart, +in his <i>Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, +Oxford</i>, ruled that the combinations <i>ae</i> and <i>oe</i> should each be printed +as two letters in Latin and Greek words and in English words of classical +derivation, but this last injunction is plainly deduced from the practice +of editors of Latin texts, and is an arbitrary rule in the interest of +uniformity: it has the sanction and influence of the Clarendon Press, but +is not universally accepted. Thus Dr. Henry Bradley writes, ‘This question +does not seem to me to be settled by the mere fact that all recent +classical editors reject the ligatures, just as most of them reject other +aids to pronunciation which the ancients had not, such as j, v, for +consonantal <i>i</i>, <i>u</i>. Many printers have conformed the spelling of +<i>English</i> words in this respect to the practice of editors of Latin texts. +I confess my own preference is for adhering to the English tradition of +the ligature, not only in English words, but even in Latin or Greek names +quoted in an English context. If we write ae, oe in Philae, Adelphoe, we +need the diæresis in Aglaë, Pholoë, and a name like Aeaea looks very funny +in an English context. The editors of Latin texts are perfectly right in +discarding the ligatures; but so they are also in writing Iuuenalis; Latin +is one thing and English is another.’ +</p> +<h3> +IV. <i>Dying Words</i>. +</h3> +<p> +Our language is always suffering another kind of impoverishment which is +somewhat mysterious in its causes and perhaps impossible to prevent. This +is the kind of blight which attacks many of our most ancient, beautiful, +and expressive words, rendering them first of all unsuitable for +colloquial use, though they may be still used in prose. Next they are +driven out of the prose vocabulary into that of poetry, and at last +removed into that limbo of archaisms and affectations to which so many +beautiful but dead words of our language have been unhappily banished. It +is not that these words lose their lustre, as many words lose it, by +hackneyed use and common handling; the process is exactly opposite; by not +being used enough, the phosphorescence of decay seems to attack them, and +give them a kind of shimmer which makes them seem too fine for common +occasions. But once a word falls out of colloquial speech its life is +threatened; it may linger on in literature, but its radiance, at first +perhaps brighter, will gradually diminish, and it must sooner or later +fade away, or live only as a conscious archaism. The fate of many +beautiful old words like <i>teen</i> and <i>dole</i> and <i>meed</i> has thus been +decided; they are now practically lost to the language, and can probably +never be restored to common use.[<a href="#note-2">2</a>] It is, however, an interesting +question, and one worthy of the consideration of our members, whether it +may be possible, at its beginning, to stop this process of decay; whether +a word at the moment when it begins to seem too poetical, might not +perhaps be reclaimed for common speech by timely and not inappropriate +usage, and thus saved, before it is too late, from the blight of +over-expressiveness which will otherwise kill it in the end. +</p> +<p> +The usage in regard to these tainted words varies a good deal, though +probably not so much as people generally think: some of them, like <i>delve</i> +and <i>dwell</i>, still linger on in metaphors; and people will still speak of +<i>delving</i> into their minds, and <i>dwelling</i> in thought, who would never +think of <i>delving</i> in the garden, or <i>dwelling</i> in England; and we will +call people <i>swine</i><a href="#swine">*</a> or <i>hounds</i>, although we cannot use these words for +the animals they more properly designate. We can speak of a <i>swift</i><a href="#swift">*</a> +punishment, but not a <i>swift</i> bird, or airplane, or steamer, and we <i>shun</i> +a thought, but not a bore; and many similar instances could be given. +Perhaps words of this kind cannot be saved from the unhappy doom which +threatens them. It is not impossible, on the other hand, that, by a slight +conscious effort, some of these words might still be saved; and there may +be, among our members, persons of sufficient courage to suffer, in a pious +cause, the imputation of preciosity and affectation which such attempts +involve. To the consideration of such persons we could recommend words +like <i>maid</i>, <i>maiden</i>, <i>damsel</i>, <i>weep</i>, <i>bide</i>, <i>sojourn</i>, <i>seek</i>, +<i>heinous</i>, <i>swift</i>, <i>chide</i><a href="#chide">*</a>, and the many other excellent and expressive +old words which are now falling into colloquial disuse. +</p> +<p> +There is one curious means by which the life of these words may be +lengthened and by which, possibly, they may regain a current and +colloquial use. They can be still used humorously and as it were in +quotation marks; words like <i>pelf</i>, <i>maiden</i>, <i>lad</i>, <i>damsel</i>, and many +others are sometimes used in this way, which at any rate keeps them from +falling into the limbo of silence. Whether any of them have by this means +renewed their life would be an interesting subject of inquiry; it is said +that at Eton the good old word <i>usher</i>, used first only for humorous +effect, has now found its way back into the common and colloquial speech +of the school. +</p> +<h3> +V. <i>Dialectal and Popular Words</i>. +</h3> +<p> +Whether words may, by conscious effort, be preserved in colloquial usage +is an unsolved question, though perhaps our Society may help to solve it; +there is, however, another and more certain benefit which its members, or +at any rate such of them as are writers, may confer upon the language. +There are many excellent words spoken in uneducated speech and dialect all +about us, which would be valuable additions to our standard vocabulary if +they could be given currency in it. Many of these are dying words like +<i>bide</i>, <i>dight</i>, <i>blithe</i>, <i>malison</i>, <i>vengeance</i>, and since these are +still spoken in other classes, it might be less difficult to restore them +to educated speech. Others are old words like <i>thole</i> and <i>nesh</i> and <i>lew</i> +and <i>mense</i> and <i>foison</i> and <i>fash</i> and <i>douce</i>, which have never been +accepted into the standard English, or have long since vanished from it, +in spite of their excellence and ancient history, and in spite of the fact +that they have long been in current use in various districts. Others are +new formations, coined in the ever-active mint of uneducated speech, and +many of these, coming as they do full of freshness and vigour out of the +vivid popular imagination—words like <i>harum-scarum</i>, <i>gallivant</i>, +<i>cantankerous</i>, and <i>pernickety</i>—or useful monosyllables and penny pieces +of popular speech like <i>blight</i> and <i>nag</i> and <i>fun</i>—have already found +their way into standard English. But there are many others which might +with advantage be given a larger currency. This process of dialectal +regeneration, as it is called, has been greatly aided in the past by men +of letters, who have given a literary standing to the useful and +picturesque vocabulary of their unlettered neighbours, and thus helped to +reinforce with vivid terms our somewhat abstract and faded standard +speech. We owe, for instance, words like <i>lilt</i> and <i>outcome</i> to Carlyle; +<i>croon</i>, <i>eerie</i>, <i>gloaming</i> have become familiar to us from Burns’s +poems, and Sir Walter Scott added a large number of vivid local terms both +to our written and our spoken language. In the great enrichment of the +vocabulary of the romantic movement by means of words like <i>murk</i>, +<i>gloaming</i>, <i>glamour</i>, <i>gruesome</i>, <i>eerie</i>, <i>eldritch</i>, <i>uncanny</i>, +<i>warlock</i>, <i>wraith</i>—all of which were dialect or local words, we find a +good example of the expressive power of dialect speech, and see how a +standard language can be enriched by the use of popular sources. All +members of our Society can help this process by collecting words from +popular speech which are in their opinion worthy of a larger currency; +they can use them themselves and call the attention of their friends to +them, and if they are writers, they may be able, like the writers of the +past, to give them a literary standing. If their suggestions are not +accepted, no harm is done; while, if they make a happy hit and bring to +public notice a popular term or idiom which the language needs and +accepts, they have performed a service to our speech of no small +importance. +</p> +<p class="sig"> +L.P.S. +</p> +<p> </p> +<h4> +NOTES TO THE ABOVE +</h4> +<p> +<a name="role"></a> +<i>Rôle</i>. The italics and accent may be due to consciousness of <i>roll</i>. The +French word will never make itself comfortable in English if it is +homophonous with <i>roll</i>. +</p> +<p> +<a name="timbre"></a> +<i>Timbre</i>. This word is in a peculiar condition. In the French it has very +various significations, but has come to be adopted in music and acoustics +to connote the quality of a musical sound independent of its pitch and +loudness, a quality derived from the harmonics which the fundamental note +intensifies, and that depends on the special form of the instrument. The +article <i>Clang</i> in the Oxford Dictionary quotes Professor Tyndall +regretting that we have no word for this meaning, and suggesting that we +should imitate the awkward German <i>klang-farbe</i>. We have no word unless we +forcibly deprive <i>clangour</i> of its noisy associations. We generally use +<i>timbre</i> in italics and pronounce it as French; and since the word is used +only by musicians this does not cause much inconvenience to them, but it +is because of its being an unenglish word that it is confined to +specialists: and truly if it were an English word the quality which it +denotes would be spoken of more frequently, and perhaps be even more +differentiated and recognized, though it is well known to every child. Now +how should this word be Englished? Is the spelling or the pronunciation to +stand? The English pronunciation of the letters of <i>timbre</i> is forbidden +by its homophone—a French girl collecting postage-stamps in England +explained that she collected <i>timberposts</i>—, whereas our English form of +the French sound of the word would be approximately <i>tamber</i>; and this +would be not only a good English-sounding word like <i>amber</i> and <i>clamber</i>, +but would be like our <i>tambour</i>, which is <i>tympanum</i>, which again IS +<i>timbre</i>. So that if our professors and doctors of music were brave, they +would speak and write <i>tamber</i>, which would be not only English but +perfectly correct etymologically. +</p> +<p> +But this is just where what is called ‘the rub’ comes in. It would, for a +month or two, look so peculiar a word that it might require something like +a <i>coup d’état</i> to introduce it. And yet the schools of music in London +could work the miracle without difficulty or delay. +</p> +<p> +<a name="swine"></a> +<i>Swine</i>. Americans still use the word <i>pig</i> in its original sense of the +young of the hog and sow; though they will say <i>chickens</i> for <i>poultry</i>. +In England we talk of pigs and chickens when we mean swine and poultry. +Chaucer has +</p> +<blockquote> + His swyn his hors his stoor and his pultreye. +</blockquote> +<p> +The verb <i>to pig</i> has kept to its meaning, though it has developed +another: the substantive probably got loose through its generic employment +in composite words, e.g. guinea-pig, sea-pig, &c.; and having acquired a +generic use cannot lose it again. But it might perhaps be worth while to +distinguish strictly between the generic and the special use of the word +<i>pig</i>, and not call a sow a pig, nor a hen a chicken. So <i>hog</i> and <i>sow</i> +might still have their <i>pigs</i> and be all of them <i>swine</i>. +</p> +<p> +<a name="swift"></a> +<i>Swift</i>. Perhaps it is going too far to say that ‘swift’ is colloquial +only in metaphorical applications, we might speak of ‘a swift bowler’ +without exciting surprise; but it is expedient to restore this word to +general use, and avoid the use of <i>fast</i> for denotation of speed. ‘To +stand fast’ is very well, but ‘to run fast’ is thoroughly objectionable. +Such a use destroys the sense of firmness which the word is needed and +well qualified to denote. +</p> +<p> +<a name="chide"></a> +<i>Chide</i>. This word probably needs its past tense and participle to be +securely fixed before it will be used. It is perhaps wholly the +uncertainty of these that has made the word to be avoided. <i>Chid</i> and +<i>chidden</i> should be taught, and <i>chode</i> and <i>chided</i> condemned as +illiterate. +</p> +<h4> +NOTE ON ‘DYING WORDS’ +</h4> +<p> +Diderot in his <i>Lettre sur les Sourds et Muets</i> deplores the loss of good +old terms in the French of his day; he writes: +</p> +<p> +‘Je blâme cette noblesse prétendue qui nous a fait exclure de notre langue +un grand nombre d’expressions énergiques. Les Grecs, les Latins qui ne +connoissoient gueres cette fausse délicatesse, disoient en leur langue ce +qu’ils vouloient, et comme ils le vouloient. Pour nous, à force de +rafiner, nous avons appauvri la nôtre, & n’ayant souvent qu’un terme +propre à rendre une idée, nous aimons mieux affoiblir l’idée que de ne pas +employer un terme noble.[<a href="#note-3">3</a>] Quelle perte pour ceux d’entre nos Écrivains +qui ont l’imagination forte, que celle de tant de mots que nous revoyons +avec plaisir dans Amyot & dans Montagne. Ils ont commencé par être +rejettés du beau style, parce qu’ils avoient passé dans le peuple; & +ensuite rebutés par le peuple même, qui à la longue est toujours le singe +des Grands, ils sont devenus tout-à-fait inusités.’... [ED.] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note-1"><!-- Note Anchor 1 --></a>[Footnote 1: Shakespeare would have assisted the Hyena in her attempt to +naturalize herself in England: +</p> +<p> +‘I will laugh like a Hyen, and that when thou art inclined to sleep.’ <i>A.Y.L.</i>, IV. i. 156. [ED.]] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note-2"><!-- Note Anchor 2 --></a>[Footnote 2: But concerning the words <i>dole</i> and <i>meed</i> see Tract II <i>On +English Homophones</i>. Both these words have suffered through homophony. +<i>Dole</i> is a terrible example. 1, a portion = deal; 2, grief = Fr. deuil, +Lat. <i>dolor</i>; 3, deceit, from the Latin <i>dolus</i>, Gk. δόλος. All +three have been in wide use and have good authority; but neither 2 (which +is presumably that which the writer intends) nor 3 can be restored, nor is +it desirable that they should be, the sound having been specially isolated +to a substantive and verb in the sense of No. 1. +</p> +<p> +<i>Meed</i> is likewise lost by homophony with 1 mead = meadow and 2 mead = +metheglin: and it is a very serious loss. No. 1 is almost extinct except +among farmers and hay merchants, but the absurd ambiguity of No. 2 is +effective. +</p> +<p> +<i>Teen</i>, the writer’s third example, has shown recent signs of renewed +vitality in literature. [Ed.]] +</p> +<p> </p> +<p> +<a name="note-3"><!-- Note Anchor 3 --></a>[Footnote 3: <i>Noble</i>. <i>Genteel</i> would not be a fair translation, but it +gives the meaning. Littré quotes: ‘Il ne nommera pas le boulanger de +Crésus, le palefrenier de Cyrus, le chaudronnier Macistos; il dit grand +panetier, écuyer, armurier, avertissant en note que cela est plus +<i>noble</i>.’] +</p> +<p> </p> +<hr> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2> + CO-OPERATION OF MEMBERS +</h2> + +<p> +The method by which this Society proposes to work is to collect expert +opinion on matters wherein our present use is indeterminate or +unsatisfactory, and thus to arrive at a general understanding and +consensus of opinion which might be relied on to influence practice. +</p> +<p> +This method implies the active co-operation of the members of the Society, +who, it is presumed, are all interested in our aims; and the purpose of +our secretary’s paper (printed above) is to suggest topics on which +members might usefully contribute facts and opinions. +</p> +<p> +The committee, who have added a few notes to the paper, offer some remarks +on the topics suggested. +</p> +<p> +1. Whether it is advisable to Anglicize the spelling of certain French +words, like <i>timbre</i>, in order to promote their assimilation. A paper +dealing with this question, giving as full a list as possible of the +<i>words that are at present in a precarious condition</i>, and proposing in +each case the curative spelling, is invited; and any single practical +contribution to the subject will be welcome. +</p> +<p> +2. A full list of foreign nouns that are uncertain of their Englished +plurals is required. The unreadiness to come to a decided opinion in +doubtful cases is due to the absence of any overruling principle; and the +lack of a general principle is due to ignorance of all the particulars +which it would affect. Inconsistent practice is no doubt in many cases +established irrevocably, and yet if all the words about which there is at +present any uncomfortable feeling were collected and exhibited, it would +then probably appear that the majority of instances indicated a general +rule of propriety and convenience, and this would immediately decide all +doubtful cases, and these, when once recognized and established in +educated practice, would win over many other words that are refractory in +the absence of rule. What exceptions remained would be tabulated as +definitely recognized exceptions. +</p> +<p> +3. Besides the class of words indicated in Mr. Pearsall Smith’s paper, +there is another set of plural forms needing attention, and that is the +Greek words that denote the various sciences and arts; there is in these +an uncertainty and inconsistency in the use of singular and plural forms. +We say Music and Physics, but should we say Ethic or Ethics, Esthetic or +Esthetics? Here again agreement on a general rule to govern doubtful cases +would be a boon. The experience of writers and teachers who are in daily +contact with such words should make their opinions of value, and we invite +them to deal with the subject. The corresponding use of Latin plurals +taking singular verbs, as <i>Morals</i>, should be brought under rule. +</p> +<p> +4. The question of the use of <i>ae</i> (<i>æ</i>) and <i>oe</i> (<i>œ</i>). Our Society +from the first abjured the whole controversy about reforms of spelling, +but questions of literary propriety and convenience must sometimes involve +the spellings; and this is an instance of it. On the main question of +phonetic spelling the Society would urge its members to distinguish the +use of phonetic script in <i>teaching</i>, from its introduction into English +<i>literature</i>. The first is absolutely desirable and inevitable: the second +is not only undesirable but impracticable, though this would not preclude +a good deal of reasonable reform in our literary spelling in a phonetic +direction. Those who fear that if phonetics is taught in the schools it +will then follow that our books will be commonly printed in phonetic +symbols, should read Dr. Henry Bradley’s lecture to the British Academy +‘On the relations between spoken and written language’ (1913), and they +will see that the Society’s Tract II, on ‘English Homophones’, illustrates +the unpractical nature of any scheme either of pure phonetics in the +printing of English books, or even of such a scheme as is offered by ‘the +Simplified Spelling Society’; because the great number of homophones which +are now distinguished by their different spellings would make such a +phonetic writing as unutilitarian as our present system is: moreover, if +it were adopted it would inevitably lead to the elimination of far more of +these homophones than we can afford to lose; since it would enforce by its +spelling the law which now operates only by speech, that homophones are +self-destructive. +</p> +<p> +5. Mr. Pearsall Smith has returned to the question of dialectal +regeneration mentioned in Tract I, in which we invited contributions on +the subject. In response we had a paper sent to us, which we do not print +because, though full of learning and interesting detail, it was a curious +and general disquisition calculated to divert attention from the practical +points. What the Society asks for is not a list of lost words that are +interesting in themselves: we need rather definite instances of good +dialect words which are not homophones and which would conveniently supply +wants. That is, any word proposed for rehabilitation in our practical +vocabulary should be not only a good word in itself, but should fall into +some definite place and relieve and enrich our speech by its usefulness. +It is evident that no one person can be expected to supply a full list of +such words, but on the other hand there must be very many of our members +who could contribute one or two; and such contributions are invited. +</p> +<p> +Exempli gratia. Here are two words with very different titles and claims, +<i>nesh</i> and <i>hyppish</i>. +</p> +<p> +<i>Nesh</i>, which has two columns in the Oxford Dictionary, begins in A.D. +888, and is still heartily alive in Yorks. and North Derbyshire, where it +is used in the sense of being <i>oversensitive to pain and especially to +cold</i>. In this special signification, to which it has locally settled down +after a thousand years of experience, it has no rival; and its restoration +to our domestic vocabulary would probably have a wholesome moral and +physical effect on our children. +</p> +<p> +<i>Hyppish</i> is the Englished form of hypochondriacal, its suffix carrying +its usual diminutive value, so that its meaning is ‘somewhat +hypochondriacal’. Berkeley, Gray, and Swift used <i>hyps</i> or <i>the hyp</i> for +hypochondriasis, and the adjective was apparently common. It would seem +that <i>hypochondria</i> was then spoken, as <i>hypocrisy</i> still is, with the +correct and pleasant short vowels of the Greek prefix, not as now with a +long alien diphthong <i>haipo-</i>. It was presumably this short y that +accidentally killed <i>hyppish</i>; for the word <i>hipped</i> was used of a horse +lamed in the hip, and alongside of this <i>hipped</i>, and maybe attracted by +it, an adjective <i>hypt</i> arose. When once <i>hyp</i> and <i>hypt</i> were confounded +with <i>hip</i> and <i>hipped</i>, <i>hyppish</i> would suffer and lose definition. But +<i>hypt</i> and <i>hipped</i> combined forces, and were probably even from the first +in their present uncertain condition, for when nowadays a man says that he +is <i>hipped</i>, he has no definite notion of what he means except that he is +in some way, either in his loins or mind incapacitated and out of sorts. +Whether <i>hypt</i> and <i>hipped</i> have mortally wounded each other or are still +fighting in the dark may be open to discussion: <i>hyppish</i> has now a fair +field, and if people would know what the word means, it might be restored, +like <i>nesh</i>, to useful domestic activity. +</p> +<p> +6. The example given of the word <i>fast</i> on p. 12 suggests another matter +to which attention might be paid. If one looks up any word in the Oxford +Dictionary, one will be almost distressed to see how various the +significations are to which it is authoritatively susceptible. A word +seems to behave like an animal that goes skirting about discontentedly, in +search of a more congenial habitation. It is sometimes successful, and +meets with surprising welcome in some strange corner where it establishes +itself, forgetful of its old home: sometimes, like the bad spirit in the +gospel, it will return to the house whence it came forth. It is, of +course, natural and essential to a living language that such shades and +varieties of meaning should evolve themselves, although they are +incidentally a source of ambiguity and subtle traps for careless logic; +but when these varieties so diverge as to arrive ultimately at absurdities +and contradictions, then it is advisable to get rid of them. In such +extreme cases the surgeon’s knife may sometimes save life; it is the only +cure; and <i>to use a word in a deforming or deformed sense should be +condemned as a solecism</i>. Contributions, stating examples of this with the +proposed taboo, are invited. +</p> +<p> +7. This last fault, of damaging a word by wrong use, might come under the +general head of ‘Abuse of words’. This is a wide and popular topic, as may +be seen by the constant small rain of private protests in the +correspondence columns of the newspapers. The committee of the S.P.E. +would be glad to meet the public taste by expert treatment of offending +words if members would supply their pet abominations. There was a good +letter on the use of <i>morale</i> in the <i>Times Literary Supplement</i> on +February 19. The writer, a member of our Society, permits us to reprint it +here as a sample of sound treatment. +</p> +<h4> +“MORAL(E) +</h4> +<p> +‘Tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard, and the +purizing (so to speak) of the purist has been a tempting game since Lucian +baited Lexiphanes; may I yield to the temptation? During the war our +amateur and other strategists have suppressed the English word <i>morale</i> +and combined to force upon us in its stead the French (or Franco-German?) +<i>moral</i>. We have submitted, as to Dora, but with the secret hope, as about +Dora, that when the war’s tyranny was overpast we might be allowed our +liberty again. Here are two specimens, from your own columns, of the +disciplinary measures to which we have been subject: ‘He persistently +spells <i>moral</i> (state of mind of the troops, not their morality) with a +final <i>e</i>, a sign of ignorance of French which is unfortunately so often +the mark of the classical scholar’; and again, ‘The purist in language +might quarrel with Mr. ——’s title for this book on the psychology of +war, for he means by <i>morale</i> not "ethics" or "moral philosophy", but "the +temper of a people expressing itself in action". But no doubt there is +authority for the perversion of the French word.’ +</p> +<p> +To such discipline we have all been laudably amenable, and <i>morale</i> has +seldom been seen in the London papers since 1914; but it, and not <i>moral</i>, +is the English word; we once all wrote it without thinking twice about the +matter; even in war-time one met it in the local newspapers that had not +time to keep up with London’s latest tricks, and in those parts of the +London Press itself that had to use a tongue understanded of the people. +It is very refreshing to see that <i>morale</i> is now beginning to show itself +again, timidly and occasionally, even in select quarters. The fact is, +these literary drill-sergeants have made a mistake; the English <i>morale</i> +is not a ‘perversion of <i>the</i> French word’; it is a phonetic respelling, +and a most useful one, of <i>a</i> French word. We have never had anything to +do with the French word <i>morale</i> (ethics, morality, a moral, &c.); but we +found the French word <i>moral</i> (state of discipline and spirit in armies, +&c.) suited to our needs, and put an <i>e</i> on to it to keep its sound +distinct from that of our own word <i>moral</i>, just as we have done with the +French <i>local</i> (English <i>locale</i>) and the German <i>Choral</i> (English +<i>chorale</i>), and as, using contrary means for the same end of fixing a +sound, we have turned French <i>diplomate</i> into English <i>diplomat</i>. Our +English <i>forte</i> (‘Geniality is not his <i>forte</i>,’ &c.) is altered from the +French <i>fort</i> without even the advantage of either keeping the French +sound or distinguishing the spoken word from our <i>fort</i>; but who proposes +to sacrifice the reader’s convenience by correcting the ‘ignorant’ +spelling? In the light of these parallels is it not the patrons of <i>moral</i> +who deserve the imputation of ignorance rather than we common folk? We do +not indeed profess to know what <i>moral</i> and <i>morale</i> mean in French, but +then that knowledge is irrelevant. They do not know the true English +method of dealing with borrowings from French; and that knowledge is +highly relevant. +</p> +<p> +A fair summary of the matter is perhaps this. The case for the spelling +<i>moral</i> is that (1) the French use the word <i>moral</i> for what we used to +call <i>morale</i>, and therefore we ought to do the same; and (2) the French +use <i>morale</i> to mean something different from what we mean by it. The case +against <i>moral</i> is (1) that it is a new word, less comprehensible to +ordinary people, even now, after its war-time currency, than the old +<i>morale</i>; (2) that it badly needs to be dressed in italics owing to the +occasional danger of confusion with the English word <i>moral</i>, and that +such artificial precautions are never kept up; (3) that half of us do not +know whether to call it mŏ´ral, moră´l, or morah´l, and that it is a +recognized English custom to resolve such doubts by the addition of <i>-e</i> +or other change of spelling. And the right choice is surely to make the +English word <i>morale</i>, use ordinary type, call it morah´l, and ignore or +abstain from the French word <i>morale</i>, of which we have no need. +</p> +<p> +The risk of confusion, merely mentioned above, perhaps deserves a +paragraph to itself. If we reinstate the once almost universal <i>morale</i>, +we need no italics, and there is no fear of confusion; if we adopt +<i>moral</i>, we need italics, and there is no hope of getting them; it is at +present printed oftener without than with them. The following five +extracts, in some of which the English adjective <i>moral</i>, and in some the +French noun <i>moral</i>, is meant, are printed here exactly as they originally +appeared, that is, with <i>moral</i> in the same type as the rest, and they are +enough to suggest how easy it is for real doubts to arise about which word +is being used—‘An astounding increase in the moral discipline and +patriotism of German soldiers.’ Has, or has not, a comma dropped out after +<i>moral</i>? ‘It is, indeed, a new proof of the failing moral and internal +troubles of the German people.’ Moral and internal? or moral and troubles? +‘A true arbitrator, a man really impartial between two contendants and +even indifferent to their opposing morals.’ ‘The Russian army will recover +its moral and fighting power.’ ‘The need of Poland, not only for moral, +but for the material support of the Allies.’ +</p> +<p class="sig"> +H. W. FOWLER.” +</p> +<p> </p> +<hr> + +<p> </p> +<p> </p> + +<h2> + ‘SPELLING PRONUNCIATIONS’ +</h2> + +<p> +Many writers on English pronunciation are accustomed to pour +undiscriminating censure on the growing practice of substituting for the +traditional mode of pronouncing certain words an ‘artificial’ +pronunciation which is an interpretation of the written form of the words +in accordance with the general rules relating to the ‘powers’ of the +letters. This practice is especially common among imperfectly educated +people who are ambitious of speaking correctly, and have unfortunately no +better standard of ‘correctness’ than that of conformity with the +spelling. I remember hearing a highly-intelligent working-class orator +repeatedly pronounce the word <i>suggest</i> as ‘sug jest’. Such vagaries as +this are not likely ever to be generally adopted. But a good many +‘spelling-pronunciations’ have found their way into general educated use, +and others which are now condemned as vulgar or affected will probably at +some future time be universally adopted. I do not share the sentimental +regret with which some philologists regard this tendency of the language. +It seems to me that each case ought to be judged on its own merits, and by +a strictly utilitarian standard. When a ‘spelling-pronunciation’ is a mere +useless pedantry, it is well that we should resist it as long as we can; +if it gets itself accepted, we must acquiesce; and unless the change is +not only useless but harmful, we should do so without regret, because the +influence of the written on the spoken form of language is in itself no +more condemnable than any other of the natural processes that affect the +development of speech. There are, however, some ‘spelling-pronunciations’ +that are positively mischievous. Many people, though hardly among those +who are commonly reckoned good speakers, pronounce <i>forehead</i> as it is +written. To do so is irrelevantly to call attention to the etymology of a +word that has no longer precisely its etymological sense. When the thing +to be denoted is familiar, we require an <i>identifying</i>, not a +<i>descriptive</i> word for it; and we obey a sound instinct in disguising by a +contracted pronunciation the disturbing fact that <i>forehead</i> is a +compound. +</p> +<p> +On the other hand, a ‘spelling-pronunciation’ may conduce to clearness, +and then it ought to be encouraged. I have elsewhere advocated the +sounding of the initial <i>p</i> in learned (not in popular) words beginning +with <i>ps</i>; and many other similar reforms might with advantage be adopted. +There are also other reasons besides clearness which sometimes justify the +assimilation of sound to spelling. Thus the modern pronunciation of +<i>cucumber</i> (instead of ‘cowcumber’) gets rid of the ridiculous association +with the word <i>cow</i>; and only a fanatical adherent of the principle +‘Whatever was is right’ would desire to revive the obsolete form. +</p> +<p class="sig"> +H.B. +</p> +<p> </p> +<hr /> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 12390 ***</div> +</body> +</html> |