diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67953-0.txt | 4337 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67953-0.zip | bin | 95641 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67953-h.zip | bin | 847610 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67953-h/67953-h.htm | 4776 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67953-h/images/001.jpg | bin | 28910 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67953-h/images/002.jpg | bin | 51938 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67953-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 681288 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 9113 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8c3fbd9 --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #67953 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67953) diff --git a/old/67953-0.txt b/old/67953-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 41fe39f..0000000 --- a/old/67953-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4337 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Questions at Issue in Our English -Speech, by Edwin W. Bowen - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Questions at Issue in Our English Speech - -Author: Edwin W. Bowen - -Release Date: April 29, 2022 [eBook #67953] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive/American - Libraries.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK QUESTIONS AT ISSUE IN OUR -ENGLISH SPEECH *** - - - - - - _Questions at Issue in - Our English Speech_ - - [Illustration] - - _Edwin W. Bowen, Ph.D._ - - _Author of - “Makers of American Literature”_ - - [Illustration] - - [Illustration] - - _Broadway Publishing Company_ - _PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS_ - _835 Broadway, ⁂ New York_ - - - - - Copyright, 1909 - - BY - - EDWIN W. BOWEN, Ph.D. - - _All Rights Reserved_ - - - - -_ACKNOWLEDGMENT_ - - -_Practically all the matter in this collection of essays has been -printed elsewhere. Four of the articles, “A Question of Preference -in English Spelling,” “Authority in English Pronunciation,” “What -Is Slang?” and “Briticisms versus Americanisms,” first appeared in -the “Popular Science Monthly” and are here reproduced with the kind -permission of the editor of that journal. The paper, “Vulgarisms -with a Pedigree,” is rewritten from three brief essays on allied -themes which were published in the “Atlantic Monthly” and the “North -American Review.” The essay on “Our English Spelling of Yesterday--Why -Antiquated?” is reprinted from the “Methodist Review.” I wish here to -thank the publishers of these periodicals for permission to reprint._ - - - - - CONTENTS. - - - PAGE - - Our English Spelling of Yesterday. Why Antiquated 1 - - A Question of Preference in English Spelling 25 - - Authority in English Pronunciation 38 - - Vulgarisms With a Pedigree 60 - - Briticisms Versus Americanisms 82 - - What is Slang? 108 - - Standard English. How it Arose and How it is Maintained 130 - - - - -OUR ENGLISH SPELLING OF YESTERDAY--WHY ANTIQUATED? - - -There is a marked distinction between spoken and written language. -In writing a system of conventional symbols is adopted to represent -speech. At best such a system is ill-devised and incomplete. In many -cases, as in our own tongue, the written language fairly bristles -with innumerable inaccuracies and inconsistencies and with flagrant -absurdities of orthography. Of course the written language is only an -imperfect attempt to represent graphically the spoken speech and is -a mere shadow of the real substance, of the living tongue. No system -of symbols has been adopted which represent with absolute accuracy -and adequacy a spoken language at all periods of its history. It is a -matter of extreme doubt whether any living language is now, or ever -has been, represented by its alphabet with absolute accuracy and -precision. It is quite probable that no living European tongue is today -represented by its alphabet with more than approximate accuracy and -completeness. As for the dead languages, like the classics, we may -be reasonably certain that neither the Greek nor the Latin alphabet -correctly and adequately represented those respective languages at all -periods of their history. The body of Latin literature now extant -is but a desiccated, lifeless mummy of the living, pulsating speech -which was heard upon the lips of the ancient Romans. Of that robust -and vigorous Latin vernacular, as employed by Cicero and Virgil in -all its purity, we have only embalmed specimens, preserved to us in -the stirring rhetorical periods of that prince of Roman orators and -in the stately rhythmical hexameters of that famous Mantuan bard. -_Quantum mutatum ab illo_--how unlike the spoken language, how unlike -the burning eloquence which used to thrill the populace in the ancient -Roman Forum! Small wonder we are accustomed now to speak of the tongue -of the ancient Roman and of the tongue of the ancient Hellene as a -“dead language,” for those noble tongues perished, truly, centuries -ago, when they ceased to be spoken by the inhabitants of Rome and -Athens respectively. - -However, the classics are not the only “dead languages.” There is a -sense in which some of the modern languages may be said to be “dead.” -Even our own Saxon tongue, which good King Alfred employed in all -its pristine purity both in conversation and in the translations -which he made for his people, is practically as “dead” as Latin or -Greek, inasmuch as it is no longer possible for us to think in terms -of the Anglo-Saxon or to speak with the accents and sounds of that -rugged, unpolished idiom. Indeed, the speech of Chaucer and even of -Shakespeare, no less than that of King Alfred, is to all intents -and purposes a “dead” tongue to the English-speaking people of the -twentieth century, for we no longer employ the idiom and the sound -values then current. We have the language of those times, it is true, -preserved in the works of Chaucer and in our rich literary heritage -from the Elizabethan age, but the speech of those times--the vernacular -spoken by the mellifluous-tongued and myriad-minded Shakespeare, no -less than that employed by that “verray perfight gentil knight,” -Chaucer--is no longer heard upon the lips of the users of English -and may therefore be said to be “dead.” These authors have left us -a photograph more or less faithful and true, though not a speaking -likeness, of the English language then existent. How our English -vernacular has changed ever since the days of the famous virgin queen, -not to mention the more radical changes of the far-remote days of the -ill-starred Richard II! A spoken language is constantly changing. It -grows and develops, or languishes and decays, upon the lips of those -who employ it as their mother-tongue, now incorporating into itself new -expressions and idioms and now casting off such as are old and worn -out. But it is no easy matter to fix its ever-shifting, kaleidoscopic -form, or to determine its chameleon color. The spoken language is -modified by each speaker who uses it as a medium for the communication -of his thoughts and feelings. The words which a man employs to convey -his thoughts to his fellow man have not an absolute and unvarying -significance. They have only a relative meaning, not a rigid and -definite signification, which is essential in the nature of the term, -and they express only the ideas which the writer or speaker puts -into them. The same word, as is well known, has entirely different -meanings in different passages or is employed in different senses by -the speaker. Hence a prolific source of ambiguity in language. In the -last analysis words are only conventional signs which mean whatever -the speaker and hearer agree to make them mean. Striking illustration -of this fact is furnished by our current social phrases, as Professor -Kittredge points out in his “Words and their Ways in English -Speech.”[1] Such conventional phrases as “Not at home,” “Delighted -to see you,” “Sorry to have missed you when you called” are familiar -everyday expressions which have no essential fixed meaning. To be -sure, they mean what their face value imports, but they are generally -regarded as merely polite forms--etiquette--nothing more. - -Furthermore, the sounds which constitute words have to be learned -by the tedious process of imitation, and in this very process the -sounds are modified to a greater or less extent. In childhood--in -fact, in infancy--we begin the slow and painful process of acquiring a -vocabulary to express our ideas and we continue the work till death, -ever imitating more or less closely the habits of speech of those -about us. Thus language is modified perhaps without conscious effort, -upon our part. By careful speakers the purity and the propriety of our -speech are safeguarded. On the other hand, our language is corrupted -and debased by those of careless and slipshod habits of utterance. -In any case, however, whether upon the lips of the cultured and -refined or upon the lips of the untutored and ignorant, the language -is constantly undergoing modifications for better or for worse. Since -it is true that a spoken language is ever changing and never remains -fixed, how great and far-reaching must be the modification and change -which our own English speech has undergone during the many generations -of its history! Because our written language has experienced -comparatively little alteration since the invention of printing, it -does not follow that the spoken speech has remained constant and -unchanged from century to century. Indeed, nothing is farther from the -truth. But even our written language has been subjected to some minor -alteration and slight modification since the days of Caxton, reputed -the first English printer. Spoken English, which is the real, living -language, has undergone infinite change during the last five centuries, -and has diverged more and more from the idiom of Chaucer and Caxton, -so that it is today almost an entirely different tongue. English -orthography never has kept pace with the written language. Before the -invention of printing our spelling failed to reflect the modifications -which took place in the pronunciation of our tongue and the printing -press served to establish and stereotype the conventional spelling then -in vogue, which the characteristic conservatism of the Anglo-Saxon race -has ever since preserved in its crystallized, fossilized form. - -The printing press, therefore, is largely responsible for our -inconsistent, archaic and unphonetic English orthography. When -printing was introduced into England, such bewildering confusion -and signal want of uniformity prevailed in writing and speaking the -vernacular that expediency and business exigencies alike suggested -a modification of our received spelling, and soon an imperative -demand for simplicity and uniformity was felt among the printers. In -response to this demand, and in order to facilitate the labor of the -compositor and reader, a conventional mode of spelling was adopted -and put into general use by the printers. Thus English orthography -was taken from the direct control of the intellectual class who wrote -books, and was turned over to a mechanical class who simply printed -books. The intellectual class strove to make the spelling of our tongue -conform to the pronunciation. With this object always in view English -orthography was permitted a wide variation. A writer, therefore, -enjoyed considerable latitude and freedom of choice and was untrammeled -by the binding authority of tradition or convention. The mechanical -class who undertook to establish our spelling for us at the same time -that they printed our manuscripts experienced serious difficulty in -their effort to represent an ever-varying orthography. Above all things -they aimed to reduce English orthography to some uniform notation, and -at length they achieved their purpose. Thus uniformity in our spelling -was secured, but at the sacrifice of accuracy and precision; for the -conventional orthography adopted by the early printers in England was -by no means scientific or accurate even at the time of its adoption, -and no attempt was made later to make the received orthography -adequately reproduce the pronunciation. Consequently there arose a wide -divergence between written and spoken English. Not the least important -result is the loss of knowledge we have sustained as to how successive -past generations of Englishmen spoke the vernacular. The result, which -is obvious to everyone and frequently an embarrassment to some, is the -innumerable obstacles which our archaic and inconsistent orthography -necessarily places in the way of those of the present generation who -have to learn English. - -Sometimes, indulging in a little persiflage, we point with pardonable -pride to the great achievements of our race and descant upon the -marvelous beauty and flexibility of our noble English speech. We -glory in the fact that “we speak the tongue that Shakespeare spoke,” -although we may not hold the faith and morals which Milton held. We -look with leniency upon such an oratorical or poetic utterance as a -harmless effusion of patriotic sentiment. Yet how few really are those -who today know the tongue that Shakespeare spoke! Because we speak the -vernacular we take it for granted, as a matter of course, that we speak -the language and employ the idiom of Shakespeare, little reflecting -how different our present-day English sounds from Elizabethan English. -Very few persons, indeed, have an accurate knowledge of Shakespearean -English. Our speech has taken a long step in advance since the halcyon -days of Queen Elizabeth, and it is a far cry from the twentieth century -to the sixteenth century English. Perhaps it is not wide of the mark -to affirm that not one person in a thousand of those using English as -their mother tongue could today understand a play of Shakespeare if -read with the author’s own accent and pronunciation. Spoken with the -original sound values, in accordance with authorized usage at the time -of its production, the play of Hamlet would seem to us today a foreign -tongue. With the words of Shakespeare’s plays according to our present -fashion of pronunciation we are quite familiar, but we know no more how -the master dramatist would have uttered them, as Ellis observes in his -“Early English Pronunciation,”[2] than we know how to write a play in -his idiom. The speech of Shakespeare has long since departed from us; -and if acquired today, it must be acquired as a new tongue at the cost -of untold study and unstinted toil. It would be necessary to delve into -Elizabethan antiquities and consult contemporary authorities on English -pronunciation in order to determine the accepted values of English -sounds then in use and reproduce the vernacular of that remote age. -This would involve a vast deal of patient labor and generous study, and -even at this costly price we could only hope to ascertain Shakespeare’s -speech with approximate accuracy of detail. So far has our spoken -English today left behind the written English of the Elizabethan age. - -Were it a physical possibility, it would be equally instructive and -interesting to hear our English tongue uttered with the characteristic -accents and sounds of each successive period of its history from the -age of King Alfred to the Victorian era. What a vast and striking -difference there must be registered between the received pronunciations -of these several periods, embracing a lapse of time of well-nigh ten -centuries! How they gradually shade into each other as the colors of -the prism! History records a wide divergence of the speech of King -Edward VII from that of King Alfred, and yet both of these are but -extremes of the same English language which has enjoyed an unbroken -continuity of development through so many centuries. How different our -language must have sounded upon the lips of the leading English men -of letters from Chaucer, Wickliffe, Langland, and Spenser, on down to -Dryden, Milton, Pope, and Addison! When we speak of the English speech -of a given period in the past, we naturally think of the pronunciation -as being uniform all over England. We assume without sufficient warrant -that there was a standard of pronunciation that prevailed throughout -England in those remote times, just as there is a recognized standard, -with but slight variation, that prevails in England and America at -the present day. However, even today there is no absolute standard -of pronunciation. An absolute, definite English orthoëpy does not -exist in reality; it is only a phantom, a figment of a precisian -imagination without a counterpart in nature. We use the phrase for -convenience, to be sure, but there never has been any such thing as an -absolute standard of pronunciation in English, and is not now. The -nearest approach to it is a linguistic ideal to which the users of our -English speech aim, with more or less conscious effort, to make their -pronunciation conform. - -Still, the educated pronunciation of England and America comes much -nearer to a common standard today than was ever the case before in the -history of the English language. In Elizabethan times the usage of -London and the Court did not prevail throughout the various shires of -England, where the pronunciation was somewhat provincial. The tendency -of English pronunciation in modern times has been toward uniformity. -But in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries it is almost -a straining of the meaning of words, as Ellis truly remarks, to talk of -a general English pronunciation. In those good old days there was no -received standard of pronunciation in England, and every man was free -to speak English according to his own sense of propriety. Indeed, prior -to the age of Chaucer not only was there no standard of pronunciation, -but there was no acknowledged standard of literary English. There -were various provincial dialects and also a Court dialect, but none -of these was of sufficient influence to triumph over the rest and to -compel universal imitation and adoption. After the Elizabethan age -local usage in the matter of English pronunciation declined steadily, -and the standard of the metropolis gradually commended itself, with -increasing influence, till it spread more or less completely over the -entire country. Consequently at the time of the rise of the pronouncing -dictionary, in the eighteenth century, when the great middle class -had begun to attain to prominence, provincial pronunciation fell into -disrepute, and people everywhere clamored for a guide to Court usage -in the matter of English orthoëpy. From that time to the present -there has been a close approach to uniformity of utterance in our -English speech. But in the very nature of things there cannot, of -course, be a standard pronunciation without absolute uniformity of -utterance, and it need hardly be remarked that this does not exist. -Nevertheless, the influence and dominance of the pronouncing dictionary -are clearly in the direction of a standard pronunciation and have made -possible the existing approach to that end. It is quite remarkable how -potent the influence of the pronouncing dictionary is upon English -pronunciation.[3] Despite the fact that such an orthoëpic authority -is at best arbitrary, and somewhat artificial, it has enjoyed a kind -of undisputed supremacy since the days of Dr. Johnson, the literary -autocrat of the eighteenth century; and its tyranny seems not yet -ended. For the English-speaking world still defers to the authority of -the pronouncing dictionary and to that extent is under its thrall and -has not the courage to challenge it and to assert its own independence -in matters of orthoëpy. - -Prior to the eighteenth century the pronouncing dictionary was unknown. -It therefore cannot boast the authority of a long antiquity. There -were, however, certain guides to correct orthoëpy even in those early -times, at least in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There are -preserved to us certain records of contemporary orthoëpists which throw -light upon English pronunciation in those remote times. We are not -therefore left to conjecture simply in this matter. These authorities, -to be sure, leave much to be desired in any disputed question of our -early pronunciation. Their descriptions of the accepted orthoëpy of -their respective centuries as well as their graphic representations -of the English sounds are far from lucid, and they sometimes make -confusion worse confounded. Some of the orthoëpists were content to -refer to Latin, Greek, or Hebrew sounds as a standard of comparison -for English pronunciation, sublimely unconscious of the fact that the -older pronunciation of these languages is not yet established to the -satisfaction of all scholars and that the modern pronunciation varies -with different countries. Others of them used key words the value of -which it is extremely difficult to determine definitely. Others again -refer to such unstable standards of comparison as contemporary French -and Italian. Yet, amid the endless confusion and apparent conflict of -these incomplete records, that eminent authority on our English speech -succeeded, by dint of his laborious erudition and untiring patience, -in solving the numberless difficulties with which the question of our -early pronunciation was beset. By this achievement Mr. Ellis placed -the world of scholars under lasting obligation by determining for us, -with approximate accuracy, the successive values of our early English -sounds down to the age of the pronouncing dictionary. Let Mr. Ellis -give us in his own words a summary of his arduous investigation. -“The pronunciation of English during the sixteenth century,” says -he, “was thus rendered tolerably clear, and the mode in which it -broke into that of the seventeenth century became traceable. But the -seventeenth century was, like the fifteenth, one of civil war, that is -of extraordinary commingling of the population, and consequently one -of marked linguistic change. Between the fourteenth and the sixteenth -centuries our language was almost born anew. In the seventeenth -century the idiomatic changes are by no means so evident, but the -pronunciation altered distinctly in some remarkable points. These -facts, and the breaking up of the seventeenth into the eighteenth -century pronunciation, which when established scarcely differed from -the present, are well brought to light by Wallis, Wilkins, Owen, Price, -Cooper, Miege, and Jones, followed by Buchanan, Franklin, and Sheridan. -It became, therefore, possible to assign with considerable accuracy the -pronunciation of Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and Pope, or -rather of their contemporaries.”[4] - -In the English language there is manifest a tendency for the -pronunciation to conform to the orthography. Our pronunciation seems -to be more a matter of the eye than of the ear. By this is meant that -the spelling of an English word exerts an appreciable influence upon -its pronunciation. We feel, somehow, instinctively that the spelling -ought to be an index, perhaps a reasonably trustworthy guide to the -pronunciation of a word. It seems not in keeping with the eternal -fitness of things, certainly contrary to our linguistic instinct and -opposed to the genius of our English speech, for pronunciation to be -entirely dissociated from orthography. We feel that the sound should -be forever and inseparably wedded to the writing, and our linguistic -sense is more or less shocked when the two are divorced. Especially is -this sentiment prevalent in America. What else could have prompted the -slight modification in the writing of such words as _favor_, _honor_, -_neighbor_,[5] etc., where American usage has seen fit to make a -departure from the time-honored British usage in discarding the silent -letter? Of course, as far as orthography is concerned, there is very -little difference between American and British usage. In America we aim -to pronounce more nearly as we spell. Yet even in American English the -pronunciation is occasionally divorced from the spelling, particularly -in proper names, but in British English this feature is still more -noticeable, and, no doubt, American usage in this particular is simply -to be regarded as a concession to British authority and custom.[6] For -there appears to be no general principle governing the pronunciation -of proper names, the same name being sometimes differently pronounced -in different localities. Besides, many of our proper names are -direct importations from the mother country and therefore have -naturally retained their imported pronunciations. In British usage the -pronunciation and spelling are not infrequently at glaring variance, -as in _Pall Mall_ and _Cholmondeley_, which may serve as a type of -this class of proper names. We might offer _Taliaferro_ as an American -Roland for the British Oliver. But where should we find a parallel in -American English to the characteristic British _clerk_ and _military_, -to cite only two examples of a class of words of which the distinctive -usage of the United States and Great Britain is at variance? - -Perhaps the true explanation of this variation between British and -American usage is found in the fact that America is a new country, -and hence tradition here does not carry such binding authority as -in the Old World. There the pronunciation has been handed down by -word of mouth, from generation to generation, among a people “to the -manner born.” Here conditions are much altered. America has a large -foreign-born element, and consequently many of the people cannot claim -English as their native tongue and are compelled to learn it as a -foreign language. Hence they rely, in a measure, upon the spelling -to indicate the pronunciation of English, making it a study for the -eye quite as much as for the ear. If in democratic America the habits -of speech were as thoroughly established as they are in aristocratic -England then we should speak the English language without any reference -to its orthography. But political conditions have modified our American -English somewhat, causing it to vary slightly from British usage. A -rise in social rank, which is quite common in the New World though -rare in the Old, is frequently marked by a revision of one’s former -mode of utterance, especially if your self-made man happens to have -come of an obscure and unlettered family. - -Assuredly English orthography is no criterion of received -pronunciation, either in America or in England. It requires only a -moment’s reflection to be convinced how misleading and deceptive is -our orthography as a guide to orthoëpy. Foreigners who undertake -to learn our tongue are naturally more forcibly impressed with the -utter untrustworthiness of this guide. The status of our orthography -has been correctly described by a prominent historian of our noble -speech. He says, “English is now the most barbarously spelled of any -cultivated tongue in Christendom. We are weltering in an orthographic -chaos in which a multitude of signs are represented by the same sound -and a multitude of sounds by the same sign.”[7] There is no doubt -that our spelling is exceedingly unphonetic and unscientific. In our -alphabet are only twenty-six characters to represent the multiplicity -of sounds which exist in the English language. The utter inadequacy -of our imperfect alphabet makes its strongest appeal--albeit mute--in -its vowel notation. Here the many distinct vocalic sounds with their -gradations in which English abounds must all be represented by five -symbols. Add to this that we employ the same orthographic device to -indicate quantity. The one vowel symbol _a_, for example, is written -to indicate the various divergent sounds heard in the words _father_, -_fate_, _fat_, _fall_, _ask_, and _fare_. Likewise the single letter -_o_ is employed to represent the diverse gradations of that sound which -we utter in the words _floor_, _room_, _frog_, _off_, _note_, and -_not_. Again we use diagraphs, such as _ea_, _ee_, _oa_, _ei_, _ie_, -etc., to represent a single vowel sound and diphthongs as well. As has -been pointed out by Professor Lounsbury, one and the same sound is now -represented by _e_ in _let_, by _ea_ in _head_, by _ei_ in _heifer_, by -_eo_ in _leopard_, by _ay_ in _says_, by _ai_ in _said_, and by _a_ in -_many_. - -Furthermore, as a result of the change in the values of English vowel -sounds, our vowel notation is no longer accurate. We use the character -_a_ to indicate to the eye the vowel quality in _mate_, _sate_, _rate_, -_date_, etc., where the sound value, far from being of an _a_ quality, -is really a long phonetic _e_. The truth is, all the English vowels -have undergone a radical alteration from their primitive values which -they had in the early history of our speech, having passed through -different stages in the successive periods. It is an interesting -chapter in English phonology to trace the tortuous course of a given -sound, say _a_, through its various mutations from the Anglo-Saxon -period down to the present time. Our vowels, especially, have changed -and interchanged to an extent which is simply astonishing. The average -scholar who has not made a special study of our English language has -absolutely no conception of the radical nature and vast extent of the -change and development of English sounds. Take as an illustration our -vowel _e_. The early English phonetic _e_ passed through several stages -of development and about the seventeenth century came to have the value -of a genuine long _i_, as in _ear_, _hear_, _year_, etc. Later, in the -nineteenth century, this same sound developed into a diphthong which -is its present phonetic value. Of course we speak now of the sound of -this vowel, not of the symbol which we employ to represent it to the -eye in writing. That is another story, and it illustrates the bungling -work of our early English printers. In early times there were several -characters in use to represent the vowel, _e_, to wit, _e_, _ee_, _eo_, -_ea_, and _ae_. After the printing press was set up in England, for -convenience and simplicity, _eo_ and _ae_ were not much employed. But -_e_, _ee_, and _ea_ came into general favor, and were established by -custom to indicate the vowel _e_ to the eye. However, these symbols -were not consistently used in the beginning by the printers, and hence -the present confusion in writing. Our consonantal notation shows -evidence of as flagrant abuse of symbols and of glaring inaccuracy. -Numerous examples might be cited to prove that errors on the part of -our early scribes and printers have been stereotyped in our orthography -and perpetuated to the present day. - -But not all the inconsistencies in our spelling have sprung from -the careless work of the early printers. Some are the result of our -etymological spelling. For instance, the sound of _s_ in _sure_ we -represent by the symbol _ti_ in _motion_, by _sci_ in _conscience_, -by _ci_ in _suspicion_, by _xi_ in _anxious_, by _ce_ in _ocean_, -and by _sh_ in _shepherd_. It is obviously not fair to charge such -an inconsistency as this to the sins of our erring early printers. -Still, the early English printers have enough to answer for in -corrupting the orthography of our language. They were grossly careless -and indifferent, and showed but slight regard for the propriety of -English orthography. We are not at all surprised to learn, in view -of the gross errors they committed, that they were, for the most -part, foreigners--Germans and Dutchmen--who did not use English as -their vernacular and who did not, for that reason, know the language -thoroughly. “As foreigners,” comments Professor Lounsbury, “they had -little or no knowledge of the proper spelling of our tongue”; and -he adds that “in the general license that then prevailed they could -venture to disregard where they did not care to understand.” The -result was the printing press brought chaos into English orthography -in the multitude of books which it sent broadcast over the land. -Some of the errors, it is true, were corrected subsequently, at the -beginning of the eighteenth century, when an effort was made to reform -English orthography and adjust it anew to the pronunciation. But many -of the incorrect spellings which had meanwhile crept in through the -introduction of printing were too thoroughly established by usage to -be eradicated. They continue still in English orthography as a lasting -monument alike to the crass ignorance and negligence of our early -printers and to the arrant pedantry of our early proof readers. Thus -our English orthography now in its crystallized state preserves those -glaring defects as the amber the insects which, entangled in the -liquid, are encased for ever. - -It must not be inferred, however, that as soon as Caxton set up his -press, English spelling was immediately stereotyped and fixed for all -time. It required fully two, if not three, centuries, according to -Ellis, for the picturesque diversity and latitude permitted the early -scribes to be reduced to the dull, rigid uniformity now established by -convention. Experiment after experiment was made by the typographers -whose constant and ultimate aim was simplicity. The last radical change -was effected by the seventeenth century when the spellings _ee_, _oo_, -and _oa_ were adopted by the printers. Even then a fierce struggle in -orthography was waged, as, for example, that between _sope_ and _soap_, -until the conventional spelling at last triumphed. In the seventeenth -century the writing _ie_ for long _e_ as in _brief_, _believe_, -_friend_, _chief_, and the like, was finally established after a long -and doubtful contest. In early times the spelling vacillated between -_frend_ and _freend_, _chef_, _cheef_, and _chefe_; and a scribe could -take his choice. But of course the printing press sounded the knell of -this orthographic liberty of the individual, and one must spell now -according to convention. And if one does not know what this is, he must -consult the dictionary. - -The seventeenth century witnessed many important, yea, revolutionary, -changes in our speech as a result of the social upheaval incident -to the civil war. But there was very slight recognition of these in -the contemporary orthography. The printers refused to alter the -conventional orthography to suit the modifications in the spoken -speech, and they threw the weight of all their mighty influence in -favor of the traditional spelling and against any sweeping reform. They -prevailed; and from that time down to the present they have resolutely -discouraged any attempt at extensive revision of our traditional -orthography. Hence our historic orthography with its teeming -inconsistencies and absurdities has now come to be regarded with a -feeling of reverence; and we naturally recoil from any far-reaching -reform of it as we would from laying violent hands upon an heirloom -which has passed down to us through many generations. We have become -accustomed to associate a certain spelling with a certain word, and we -do not desire to have this association broken up. We therefore feel -like registering a strong and vigorous protest against any proposed -reform of a sweeping nature which would disturb our present English -orthography, however illogical, archaic, and arbitrary. - -To be sure, some of our lexicographers have ventured to introduce -a revised spelling here and there. Dr. Johnson essayed this in -his epoch-making dictionary, published about the middle of the -eighteenth century. Indeed, he foisted not a few absurd and arbitrary -orthographies into our language, which have contributed to bring our -spelling into disrepute with those who clamor for “fonetic reform.” Let -us note some of these. Johnson threw the weight of his authority in -favor of _comptroller_ against the older _controller_, although he gave -both a place in his dictionary. He likewise harbored _foreign_ and -_sovereign_ in his dictionary, leaving the older _forrain_ and _sovran_ -to shift for themselves. He adopted _debt_ and _doubt_ with the -epenthetic _b_, to the exclusion of the older and correct _dett_ and -_dout_. He lent the weight of his influence to establish a misleading -and useless _s_ in _island_, which used to be written _iland_. But -perhaps he felt that the word was too closely associated in the popular -mind with _isle_ for _iland_ to prevail. On the other hand, he retained -the old spelling _ile_, which we have discarded for the etymological -_aisle_, adding that _isle_ was in his judgment a corrupt writing for -_aile_, then also current. His uncertainty as to the etymology of the -early English _agast_ led him to write it also _aghast_, which has -since triumphed over its quondam rival. He gives the precedence to -_delight_, to the utter defeat of _delite_, its erstwhile competitor -for popular favor. He rejected the simpler spelling _ake_ for the -less familiar _ache_, out of deference to its Greek origin, yet he -endeavored to preserve a useless _k_ in _almanack_ and _musick_ and -similar words. He made a distinction without a difference in his -spelling of the final syllables of such words as _accede_, _exceed_, -_precede_, and _proceed_. But it is idle at this distant day to arraign -Dr. Johnson on the score of his spelling. Let us therefore dismiss -the indictment against his arbitrary orthography. Some of our present -authorities on English spelling are not entirely free from reproach -in this particular. The truth is, even yet our English dictionaries -are not a unit as to approved spelling. We have not yet attained to -absolute uniformity in the matter of our orthography. For, according -to Ellis, there are still well-nigh twenty-five hundred words in the -English language the spelling of which is unsettled and indeterminate. -But we experience no serious inconvenience as a result, even if we -have no preference as to what dictionary we should follow as a guide. -In fact, any dictionary gives us a choice between _worshipped_ and -_worshiped_, _traveller_ and _traveler_, _center_ and _centre_, -and similar words, in the case of which usage still wavers and is -divided almost equally. Some excellent authorities still cling to the -etymological spelling of words of classic origin, such as _hæmorrhage_, -_diarrhœa_, _æsthetics_, _œconomics_, and _æstivate_, to mention only a -few of a large class the spelling of which vacillates. Others, again, -sanction this spelling, but throw the weight of their influence on the -side of the simpler form. This simply proves that there is some degree -of variation even in our accepted orthography. After all there is no -fixed standard of English orthography, just as there is no absolute -standard of English pronunciation. And yet there is a narrower margin -of variation in our accepted orthography than there is in our received -pronunciation. - -The movement for the reform of English spelling is beginning to -engage the attention of the public. The Simplified Spelling Board has -already entered upon a campaign which holds out some hope of success. -It remains to be seen what practical results will be accomplished. -Scholars of acknowledged eminence are lending the influence of their -authority to the movement. But there is a mighty wall of bigoted -conservatism, to be battered down before a movement so sweeping in -its aim and scope as “spelling reform” can make much headway. The -history of all similar attempts in the past is not such as to hold out -great promise to the present reformers or inspire them with unbounded -confidence. Still, intelligent, well-directed and untiring effort -ought certainly to be rewarded with a reasonable degree of success, -and surely there can be no question that there is room for improvement -in our English spelling. If we had such an institution as the French -Academy, no doubt the problem would be simplified. The outcome of the -present campaign for the revision of our English spelling will be -awaited with no little interest. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[1] See p. 219. - -[2] Vol. I, p. 22. - -[3] See Authority in English Pronunciation. - -[4] Early English Pronunciation, I, p. 26. - -[5] See A Question of Preference in English Spelling. - -[6] See Briticisms vs. Americanisms. - -[7] Professor T. R. Lounsbury, History of the English Language. p. 267. - - - - -A QUESTION OF PREFERENCE IN ENGLISH SPELLING. - - -We little think when we read or write that the words we employ are not -precisely the same as those which have been in use in our mother-tongue -from time immemorial. We are born into the language, so to say, and -the words of our vocabulary we regard as part and parcel of our rich -heritage of American liberty. Yet even the words of our English -speech, like many of the institutions and customs of our Anglo-Saxon -civilization, have a long history back of them, showing traces here -and there of the various stages of development they have passed -through. The words we use to-day are not identical in form or meaning -with those employed by our forebears of the generation of Chaucer or -even of the generation of Shakespeare. The forms of our English words -have undergone considerable change since that remote period in the -development of our mother-tongue. English spelling is far different -from what it was in Alfred’s, or Chaucer’s time. - -Before the invention of printing, those who spoke and wrote the English -language seem to have been at liberty to spell as they chose. Their -mental composure was not disturbed by the annoying suspicion that their -spelling was not according to the norm prescribed by the dictionary. -In those good old days there was no acknowledged criterion such as -the “Century,” or “Webster,” or “Worcester”; and writers had no final -appeal in the matter of orthography as present-day writers have. Since -there was no standard authority on orthography to which all polite -society had to conform, the authors of the thirteenth and fourteenth -centuries were untrammeled by tradition and were free to spell as they -pleased. Every writer was a law unto himself and followed the dictates -of his own orthographical conscience, with no dictionary to molest -or make him afraid. We find an allusion to this delightful sense of -freedom in the comment which a well-known American humorist made upon -Chaucer, that well of English undefiled from which so many modern -writers have drunk copious draughts of inspiration. “Chaucer,” said he -quaintly, “may have been a fine poet, but he was a ---- poor speller.” - -The diffusion of the art of printing and the consequent necessity -for a uniform orthography gradually curtailed this liberty, and then -the day of the dictionary dawned. The dictionary is a democratic -invention called into being by the rise of the great middle class of -society, which desired to become familiar with the practises of polite -circles. Lexicographers came forward to supply the desired information. -Authors not “to the mannor born,” and therefore unacquainted with -courtly usage, when moved to write, felt that they must conform to -the standards set up by the lexicographers, who claimed to give the -received usage, the _jus et norma scribendi_. Before the epoch of -dictionaries it appears not to have made the slightest difference -whether a writer spelled the word _recede_, for example, according to -the present accepted orthography, or whether he spelled it _receed_, -_receede_, _recede_ or _recead_, all of which forms are found in -manuscripts of a few centuries ago. Some of these orthographic -variations lingered into the eighteenth century, though English -spelling had probably become stereotyped at least a century before this -date. Yet the establishment of the spelling was naturally a gradual -process, and some words vacillated a long time and never really became -fixed. Of this more anon. Proper names showed considerable latitude -of spelling. Men of the eminence of Spenser, rare Ben Jonson and -Shakespeare, for example, are said to have had no fixed practise of -spelling their names, but wrote them in a variety of ways. - -The lack of a standard authority of orthography necessarily gave rise -to much confusion and disorder in English spelling. This confusion is -reflected even yet in the present chaotic and unphonetic spelling of -our language. Few tongues are more unphonetic than the English. This -fact is recognized and efforts have been made to bring our spelling -into closer conformity with our pronunciation. Philological societies -on both sides of the Atlantic have been trying for the last quarter -of a century, at least, to reform English spelling; but only meager -success has been achieved thus far. - -The proposed reforms have been of two kinds, and they have varying -aims. One recommended by the extreme phonetists, is a reform which -contemplates a revision and enlargement of our alphabet. This would -result in a radical transformation of our written speech, and chiefly -for this reason it has found few ardent advocates. It may be briefly -described as a reform of the language. The other reform is less -revolutionary and contemplates mainly a simplification of our present -spelling, such as the omission of silent letters, the substitution of -“f” for “ph” as in _phonetics_ (fonetics) and of “t” for final “d” as -in _equipped_ (equipt) and similar emendations. Of the two kinds of -reform the latter has, manifestly, more to commend it to popular favor. -This kind of reform may be termed a reform in the language. - -The public concedes the unphonetic character of English orthography, -but the conservatism of the Anglo-Saxon race is so binding that the -people are slow to adopt even the slightest recommendations of the -philological societies. A few American journals have had the courage -to adopt certain emended spellings, such as _thru_ (through), _tho_ -(though), _catalog_ (catalogue) and the like, but the majority of -our periodicals show by their practise very meager approval of -spelling-reform. No publisher, so far as known to the writer, has -ventured as yet to use the emended spelling in a book issued by his -firm. Yet all admit the need of spelling-reform and believe that, if -adopted, it would save the coming generation a vast deal of humdrum -work in acquiring an accurate knowledge of English orthography. - -We Americans, however, with our characteristic spirit of independence -have made bold to break away from British tradition and custom in -the writing of certain English words and have introduced a few minor -reforms in our spelling. But the English people have not followed -our lead in this matter, being content to allow our adopted American -spelling, together with our distinctive pronunciation, serve as an -earmark to distinguish American from British English. It is the -practise of some reputable British journals to disparage our spelling, -wherever it makes a departure from English traditions, and to refer -to it by way of reproach as “American spelling.” Some few years ago -the _St. James Gazette_, intending to express its disapproval of our -spelling, deprecatingly remarked that “already newspapers in London -are habitually using the ugliest forms of American spelling and those -silly eccentricities do not make the slightest difference in their -circulation.” Viewed in the light of subsequent events, perhaps this -ought to be considered as the forerunner of “the American invasion.” - -As every one knows who has visited the mother country, there is a -perceptible difference not only in the spelling, but also in the -pronunciation, between American English and British English. Of -course the language is the same in America as in England; and yet -there are some appreciable minor points of difference. For example, -the Englishman gives the broad sound to the vowel _a_ as in _father_, -when it is followed by such a combination of consonants as in the -words _ask_, _fast_, _dance_, _can’t_, _answer_, _after_ and the like. -In America, on the other hand, while this pronunciation is heard in -some circles, it is clearly not the ordinary pronunciation and is -not general, as in England. There is also a noticeable difference -in the pronunciation of long _o_, the Englishman giving the vowel a -distinctive utterance quite unlike that ordinarily heard in America. -The pronunciation of the word _been_ is a shibboleth by which a man -of British nationality may be almost unfailingly distinguished. The -native Englishman pronounces the word so as to rhyme with _seen_, never -_bin_. In addition to these points of pronunciation there are certain -locutions which never fail to betray an Englishman. The English call -an elevator _a lift_, overshoes _galoshes_, napkins _serviettes_, -candy _sweets_. In England a baby-carriage is called a _perambulator_, -which is generally abridged “_pram_” merely; a lamp-post is known as -_lamp-pillar_ and a letter-box as a _pillar-box_. There no one would -ask at a store for a wash-bowl and pitcher, however much he might need -these useful household articles, but he would call at the shop for -a _jug_ and _basin_. An American in London must not say street car, -but _tram_ or _road car_; not engine (which is pronounced injin), but -_locomotive-engine_; not engineer, but _engine-driver_. In England -many ordinary household articles are known by names as different from -those in our country as if the language there were altogether a foreign -tongue. Small wonder, then, that a keen-witted American maid remarked, -_à propos_ of the difference between British English and American -English, that London was a delightful place if you only knew the -language. - -Nowhere is the difference between American English and British English -more marked and interesting than in the varying practise of spelling -on both sides of the Atlantic. Let us note some of the chief points of -variation. - -Our British cousins assume an exasperating air of superiority when they -mention the matter of our spelling and, as self-appointed conservators -of the language, point out what they are pleased to style the offensive -eccentricities of American spelling. The British journals ever and anon -draw attention to our manner of writing such words as _favor_, _honor_, -_center_, _program_, _almanac_, _tire_, _curb_, _check_ and _criticize_ -and the like, which they spell _favour_, _honour_, _centre_, -_programme_, _almanack_, _tyre_, _kerb_, _cheque_ and _criticise_. -Now, in the case of most of these words, we submit that the American -spelling is nearer the historical spelling, simpler and more logical -than the British method. As for the words typified by _honor_, our -method is simpler and nearer to the ultimate etymology. These words, -it hardly need be observed, are borrowed from the Latin through the -French. The British maintain that for this reason the spelling ought -to conform to the French fashion. But they overlook the fact that -these words have not always been written in English according to the -French manner of writing. Dr. Johnson, the eminent lexicographer of the -eighteenth century, wrote _honor_ beside _honour_, _neighbor_ beside -_neighbour_, _harbor_ beside _harbour_ and the like. Indeed, the great -Cham allowed himself considerable latitude in the matter of English -orthography. Moreover, the Norman-French forms of these words were -written in a variety of ways, as _our_, _eur_, _ur_, and also _or_. -Even on the historical ground, therefore, there is not lacking some -authority for the American spelling. If the English were consistent, -they would be forced by the logic of their argument to write uniformly -_governour_, _errour_, _emperour_, _oratour_, _horrour_ and _dolour_ as -well as _honour_ and _favour_. But practise shows their glaring lack -of consistency, since they do not spell these words ordinarily with -_u_. It ought not to be regarded as a reproach upon American spelling, -because in our desire for simplicity and uniformity we have rejected -the _u_ in this entire class of words like _honor_, thus making the -spelling more in keeping with the Latin derivation. We can at least lay -claim to simplicity and consistency. If we are provincial, we can not -be charged with arbitrariness in our spelling. - -As for the writing of _center_, _meter_, _meager_ and words of this -kind, the American method has as much history and logic in its favor -as the British spelling has. Analogy, too, if that may be cited as -an argument, supports our spelling, for we all write _perimeter_, -_diameter_, never otherwise, whether we be American or English. The -word _center_, according to Lowell, who was no mean authority on -matters pertaining to our speech, “is no Americanism; it entered the -language in that shape and kept it at least as late as Defoe.” “In the -sixteenth and in the first half of the seventeenth century,” declares -Professor Lounsbury, in reference to the spelling of _center_ and -similar words, “while both ways of writing these words existed side -by side, the termination _er_ is far more common than _re_. The first -complete edition of Shakespeare’s plays was published in 1624. In that -work _sepulcher_ occurs thirteen times; it is spelled eleven times -with _er_. _Scepter_ occurs thirty-seven times; it is not once spelled -with _re_, but always with _er_. _Center_ occurs twelve times, and in -nine instances out of the twelve it ends in _er_.” John Bellows, in -the preface to his excellent French-English and English-French pocket -dictionary, states that “the Act of Parliament legalizing the use of -the metric system in this country [England] gives the words meter, -liter, gram, etc., spelt on the American plan.” It is evident, then, -that our way of writing these words is quite as logical and as much -warranted by the history of our tongue as the British spelling. - -The American orthography is clearly in advance of the British in the -word _almanac_. This word is not rightly entitled to the final _k_, as -the English spell it. This superfluous letter is a mere survival from -a former way of writing, no longer in vogue. It has been rejected in -_music_, _public_, _optic_ and similar words which are written alike -on both sides of the Atlantic. In Johnson’s dictionary and also in -our King James’s version of the Scriptures the old spelling generally -occurs. Indeed, Johnson appended the excrescent _k_ to well-nigh -all words of this class. Strange to say, there is one word of this -class which preserves the _k_ even in American English, and that is -_hammock_. This is but an exception which goes to prove that even -American English with its revised orthography is still far from being -phonetic. - -In regard to words ending in _ize_, usage in Great Britain has -established the writing _ise_, as in _civilise_. However, new -formations even there are usually made to terminate in _ize_, which is -generally adopted in America. Yet American spelling sometimes exhibits -_ise_, after the English fashion. The British writing is derived -from the French, whereas the American harks back to the original -Greek suffix. The British spelling of _tyre_, _kerb_, _programme_ and -_cheque_ perhaps has as much to commend it as the American _tire_, -_curb_, _program_ and _check_. Usage in America varies in the case of -_program_, the more conservative still clinging to _programme_. _Tyre_ -and _kerb_ are but little employed here. These words are merely variant -forms which British usage has adopted. The spelling _cheque_, in -general use in Great Britain for our bank check, has resulted through -the influence of the word _exchequer_ with which it is connected. - -The usual American spelling of _wagon_ is held up to public obloquy by -British journalists, who regard _waggon_ as the orthodox orthography. -Skeat, who gives both forms in his etymological dictionary, asserts -that the doubling of the _g_ is simply a device to show that the -preceding vowel is short. In the early history of the language when the -etymological spelling was in vogue, pedants had recourse to this method -of changing the form of a word to make it phonetic, as they claimed. -In point of fact, by their practise they made the language far less -phonetic. Spenser and other early English authors write the word after -the American fashion. Horace Greeley once made a departure from our -American usage and wrote _waggon_, saying by way of apology, when his -attention was called to it, that “they used to build wagons heavier in -the good old times when he learned to spell.” - -It is not to be supposed for a moment, however, that our utilitarian -disregard of tradition is so strong as to have eliminated all useless -letters in our American spelling. There is many a word in which an -epenthetic letter is still retained merely because the traditional -spelling shows it. _Sovereign_, _comptroller_, _island_ and _rhyme_ may -be cited as examples in point. Perhaps it ought to be added that the -emended spelling _rime_ for _rhyme_ appears to be meeting with favor in -certain philological circles. - -There is one class of words which does not exhibit a uniform method -of writing, either in Great Britain or in America. This class is -typified by the words _traveler_, _counselor_, _worshiper_ and the -like. It will be readily seen that these words are all derivatives, -formed from the primary by the addition of a suffix; and the writing -vacillates between a single and a double consonant preceding the -suffix. According to the well-known principle of English orthography, -these words are not entitled to a double consonant, and therefore -should never be written _traveller_, _counsellor_ and _worshipper_. The -rule is, if the final syllable of a word ending in a single consonant -and preceded by a short vowel is accented, the final consonant, on -the addition of a suffix beginning with a vowel, is doubled; but -never otherwise. Thus we write _offered_, _deviled_ and the like, but -_referred_, _transferred_ and _jammed_. Hence the orthodox spelling -should be _traveler_, _counselor_, _worshiper_, _unrivaled_ and the -like. But practise shows that either spelling is regarded as correct -on both sides of the Atlantic. These words are survivals from a former -period in the history of the language when more latitude was allowed -in English orthography and there was no hard and fast line drawn, no -fixed standard. The proper historical spelling, it is interesting to -note, is with one consonant, as in _counselor_ derived ultimately from -the Latin _consilarius_. While either spelling is considered correct, -British usage favors the double consonant (_counsellor_) and American -the single (_counselor_). Here again as elsewhere American spelling -inclines to simplification and would make these words conform to the -general rule of English orthography as laid down above. Strange to say, -British usage shows one exception in the word _paralleled_, which it -has adopted (and not _parallelled_). Here we find another instance of -the striking inconsistency of British orthography. It may be a shocking -thing to say, but investigation will prove it true, that if those -British critics who censure our spelling so severely, as offending -their esthetic sense, were more familiar with the history of the -language, they would, without doubt, have far less comment to make upon -the so-called eccentricities of American spelling. - -It remains to notice some apparent exceptions to the rule of English -orthography stated above. Noteworthy among these are the words -_handicapped_ and _kidnapped_, which are written alike in British and -American English. But they can be explained and are only apparent -exceptions. A moment’s reflection is sufficient to convince one that -_handicap_ and _kidnap_ are not simple words, but in reality compounds -in which the last element has not completely lost its identity in -combination. Because of the consciousness of the independent words -_cap_ and _nap_ in these compounds, they conform to the rule as a -matter of fact and therefore double the final consonant, on the -addition of a suffix beginning with a vowel. Hence, if they are -exceptions, they must be considered exceptions which prove the rule. - -The few points we have drawn attention to in this imperfect little -sketch are enough to show how unphonetic and illogical is our English -spelling. Many of the eccentricities of our orthography, according -to Skeat, have resulted from the futile attempts of pedants in the -sixteenth century to make English spelling etymological and to make it -conform to the classics, from which a vast multitude of words had been -introduced into our speech. These conscious attempts at etymological -spelling gave rise to endless confusion and disorder. But other causes, -such as analogy and mere caprice, also contributed to this end. Thus -we are to explain the writing of the word _female_, for example. This -word, coming from the Latin _femella_ through the French _femelle_ -into English, was originally written _femelle_ and would probably -have retained this form to the present time. But because of a fancied -connection with the word _male_, the spelling was changed to _female_. -In a similar manner is to be explained the spelling of numerous other -words in our language which seem perfectly natural and logical on first -blush. - - - - -AUTHORITY IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION. - - -For wellnigh two centuries a popular belief has prevailed throughout -the English-speaking world that there should be a standard of -pronunciation, which should be followed in all those countries where -English is the native tongue. Many people, holding this view, assume -that some such norm is unconsciously observed by men of education -and culture, who, because of their influence and rank, are generally -conceded the right to establish the customs of speech. It is but -natural, therefore, that men with greater or less claim to culture -and education should take it upon themselves from time to time to -determine the supposed standard of pronunciation. Thus as far back as -the beginning of the eighteenth century we find that the orthoepists -of that period undertook to ascertain and record the pronunciation of -English as practised in polite society. - -Now, the early orthoepists discovered, apparently to their -astonishment, that English pronunciation, even in the most cultured -circles, far from being fixed by ironclad rules, was quite an elastic -thing, allowing considerable latitude. Indeed, two centuries ago -pronunciation in English, as reflected by the best usage, was no more -uniform than it is to-day. Then as now, men recognized no fixed and -absolute standard of English pronunciation. They followed their own -tastes and individual preferences, despite the orthoepical suggestions -and recommendations of their contemporaries. Prejudice and caprice, -too, in those days, as in the present time, were factors to be reckoned -with, so that the path of the would-be authority on pronunciation was -beset with no slight difficulty. - -It must not be inferred, however, that the orthoepists themselves were -a unit and in perfect harmony as to current usage. On the contrary, -they were frequently far apart in recording the pronunciation -sanctioned by the best society and differed quite as much as their -worthy successors of the present day. They sometimes indulged in -vituperation and severe censure at each others’ expense and made no -attempt to conceal their disapproval of a rival’s authority, which -they expressed in plain, vigorous Anglo-Saxon. Some of their sarcastic -remarks furnish spicy and entertaining reading to the student who is -willing to plod his way through the dreary waste of those forgotten -dust-covered tomes. - -The most conspicuous among the eighteenth century orthoepists were -Baily, Johnson, Buchanan, Sheridan and Walker. Some of these were -Scotch, and some Irish, and some, of course, English. Quite naturally -it struck the fancy of an Englishman as somewhat humorous, not to say -absurd, for an Irishman or a Scotchman to pose as an authority on -English pronunciation. So the damaging taunt of foreign nationality -and consequent lack of acquaintance with English usage was flaunted -in the face of Buchanan and Sheridan, natives of Scotland and Ireland, -respectively. - -When Doctor Johnson was informed of Sheridan’s plan of producing an -English dictionary that was designed to indicate the pronunciation of -each word, he ridiculed the idea of an Irishman’s presuming to teach -Englishmen how to speak their native language as utterly absurd. -“Why, Sir,” growled the autocrat of eighteenth century literature, -“my dictionary shows you the accent of words, if you can but remember -them.” Then on being reminded that his dictionary does not give -the pronunciation of the vowels, “Why, Sir,” continued he, in his -characteristic surly manner, “consider how much easier it is to learn -a language by the ear than by any marks. Sheridan’s dictionary may do -very well; but you can not always carry it about with you; and when -you want the word, you have not the dictionary. It is like the man -who has a sword that will not draw. It is an admirable sword, to be -sure; but while your enemy is cutting your throat, you are unable to -use it. Besides, Sir, what entitles Sheridan to fix the pronunciation -of English? He has, in the first place, the disadvantage of being an -Irishman; and if he says he will fix it after the example of the best -company, why they differ among themselves. I remember an instance: when -I published the plan of my dictionary, Lord Chesterfield told me that -the word _great_ should be pronounced to rhyme to _state_; and Sir -William Yonge sent me word that it should be pronounced so as to rhyme -to _seat_, and that none but Irishmen would pronounce it _grait_. Now, -here were two men of the highest rank, the one the best speaker in the -House of Lords, the other the best speaker in the House of Commons, -differing entirely.” - -As this quotation shows clearly and forcibly, even the usage of the -very best speakers in England in the eighteenth century was far from -uniform and harmonious, as has been intimated in the opening paragraph. -Moreover, it is evident from the striking illustration Johnson uses -that English pronunciation must have varied much more two centuries -ago than it does to-day; for no two speakers of national reputation, -such as the leaders of the two chambers of Parliament presumably must -have been, would differ so radically at the present time in their -pronunciation. The truth is, in those good old days men paid but little -attention either to pronunciation or to spelling. It is a fact not -so widely known as it deserves to be, that English orthography two -centuries ago was just emerging from a state of confusion and chaos; -and law and order were then for the first time beginning to appear. The -result is the conventional spelling which only since the eighteenth -century has been stereotyped in the form now so familiar to all -educated people. And not even yet, as we know, has English orthography -had its perfect work. As late as Doctor Johnson’s time, the spelling of -many English words had not yet been crystallized, and not a few words -could be spelled in two distinct ways, either of which was recognized -as correct. For instance, the spelling of _soap_, _cloak_, _choke_ and -_fuel_, to select only a few examples, as recorded in his dictionary, -vacillated between “sope,” “cloke,” “choak,” “fewel” and the present -accepted spelling of these words. These variant spellings, long since -rejected, now seem to us either attempts at phonetic spelling or quaint -and curious imitations of Chaucerian orthography. Having discussed -elsewhere[8] the subject of English spelling, I dismiss the matter here -with this passing reference. - -The crystallized form of English spelling which has been brought about -mainly through the influence of the printing-press in the last few -centuries we accept as a matter of course, little thinking of the -difficulties innumerable which the printer and the “gentle” reader -encountered three centuries ago. But the very existence of a standard -orthography, as a moment’s reflection will show, has necessitated as -its indispensable adjunct the pronouncing dictionary. - -The pronouncing dictionary, therefore, is a modern production; it was -hardly known before the first quarter of the eighteenth century. It is -held by some scholars, notably Professor Lounsbury in his “Standard of -Pronunciation in English,” that the pronouncing dictionary was called -into existence by the desire on the part of the imperfectly educated -middle class to know what to say and how to say it. This desire became -stronger and stronger as the members of that growing class of England’s -population rose by degrees into social prominence. Possessing little -culture and few social advantages, and lacking confidence in their -meager training, such people were not willing to exercise the right of -private judgment, and consequently they sought out an authority and -guide. They were eager to learn the modes of speech which obtained in -the most highly cultured circles, the _jus et norma loquendi_ of the -nobility. It was natural therefore, since the occasion appeared to -demand it, that self-appointed guides should come forward and offer -to conduct the multitudes of social pariahs through the wilderness of -orthoepical embarrassment into the Canaan of polite usage. Such was -probably the origin of the pronouncing dictionary. - -It will prove interesting to consider some of the pronunciations -authorized by the early orthoepists as reflecting contemporary usage. -How unlike current usage many of those early pronunciations are, the -reader will see for himself. But first a word as to the orthoepists -themselves. - -The earliest of the eighteenth century orthoepists is Baily. His -dictionary enjoyed the enviable distinction of being the first -authority on English pronunciation during the first half of the -eighteenth century. But Baily’s supremacy was eclipsed by Johnson, -whose epoch-marking dictionary appeared in 1755. Johnson claimed to -record the most approved method of English orthoepy, and his prestige -as a man of letters contributed speedily to establish his dictionary as -the ultimate authority on English pronunciation. It is to be observed, -however, that Johnson only indicated the syllable on which the accent -falls. This left much to be desired as a pronouncing dictionary. So, in -1766, Buchanan, a Scotchman, gave to the world his dictionary which -challenged Johnson’s pre-eminence. A few years later, in 1780, to be -accurate, Sheridan published his dictionary. Sheridan was an Irishman -by birth, as has been said, the son of the famous British orator and -dramatist, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, whose plays are so favorably -known to us through Mr. Jefferson’s interpretation. Sheridan’s -nationality was used by his competitors to prejudice the public -against his dictionary and to discount it as an authority on English -pronunciation. Still Sheridan enjoyed a considerable vogue. - -In 1791 Walker published his dictionary. The reputation of this work, -in a revised form, extended far into the last century, so we are -informed by the late Mr. Ellis in his authoritative work on English -pronunciation. Walker, like Sheridan, was an actor, but unlike his -rival he was an Englishman by birth. He did not fail to draw attention -to the advantage this circumstance would naturally give him in the -popular estimation, in advertising the merits of his book. In his -treatment of the principles of pronunciation, however, Walker shows a -feeble grasp of his subject, and the most serious criticism upon his -book is that he was unduly influenced by the spelling in ascertaining -the pronunciation of a word. “In almost every part of his principles,” -says Mr. Ellis, speaking of Walker’s work, “and in his remarks upon -particular words throughout his dictionary, one will see the most -evident marks of insufficient knowledge and of that kind of pedantic -self-sufficiency which is the true growth of half-enlightened -ignorance.” Such drastic criticism upon the author of a dictionary -which was esteemed the highest authority on English pronunciation -during the first half of the last century does not invite confidence in -the results of our early orthoepists. Rather it makes us feel that none -of them is perhaps entitled to credit. Probably Doctor Johnson shared -this feeling when he exclaimed in the preface to his dictionary, _Quis -autem custodiet ipsos custodes?_ - -So much for the lexicographers of the eighteenth century. Let us now -consider some of the pronunciations authorized by them, which have -long since been discarded. These will serve as illustrations to bring -home to the mind of the reader the truth that our speech is slowly but -surely and constantly changing, and that English pronunciation, unlike -English spelling, has never been stereotyped in a fast, unvarying form. -They will also show how indispensable an auxiliary to our crystallized, -conventional spelling has the pronouncing dictionary become. - -An interesting illustration is furnished by the word _asparagus_. -The popular pronunciation of this word in the eighteenth century -was _sparrow-grass_. This was felt by the orthoepists, however, to -be a vulgar corruption of the word, and they therefore strove with -concerted effort to stem the popular tide and to make the pronunciation -conform to abstract propriety as indicated by the spelling. Walker, -in commenting upon the pronunciation of the word, remarks, as if -apologizing for the theoretically correct form which he recommends, -that “the corruption of the word into _sparrow-grass_ is so general -that asparagus has an air of stiffness and pedantry.” Another word -with a no less interesting history is _cucumber_. This word used to -be generally pronounced _cowcumber_. The popular pronunciation of -this word as well as of _asparagus_, once so universal, has survived -even up to the present in the lingo of the illiterate whites of New -England and in the Negro dialect. This vulgar pronunciation which was -a thorn in the flesh to the eighteenth century lexicographers, it is -instructive to note in passing, was not the result of mere caprice, but -was warranted by an old variant spelling of the word. This historic -spelling, long since discarded altogether by the users of English, was -formerly very prevalent and in good literary usage. Hence little wonder -that the vulgar pronunciation for a long time contested the supremacy -with the mode of utterance now universally accepted. Even so high an -authority as Mr. Pepys refers in his “Diary” to a certain man as “dead -of eating cowcumbers.” It was not till wellnigh the middle of the last -century that the orthoepists Knowles and Smart ventured to denounce -_cowcumber_ along with _sparrow-grass_ as vulgar and therefore tabooed -in polite circles. - -It is a well-established fact in the history of English pronunciation -that in the seventeenth century and far into the following century such -words as _spoil_, _toil_, _boil_, and so on, were pronounced, even in -best usage, precisely as they are uttered to-day in the Negro dialect -and by the illiterate whites among us, that is, just as if they were -written “spile,” “tile” and “bile.” This is conclusively proved by the -rhymes of Dryden and Pope.[9] It is further evident from the rhymes -of the poets of the latter half of the eighteenth century that this -archaic pronunciation persisted almost down to the beginning of the -last century. This pronunciation was regarded by the orthoepists as -antiquated and vulgar, and they did not fail to denounce it in strong -terms, warning against its use. In 1773 Kenrick records with mingled -regret and disgust that it would appear affected to pronounce such -words as _boil_, _join_ and many others otherwise than as “bile” and -“jine.” But toward the close of the eighteenth century the present -pronunciation began to prevail and “the banished diphthong,” as Nares -records with triumphant delight, “seemed at length to be upon its -return.” This same orthoepist informs us, and we may well believe -him, that it was the authority of the poets, who had pilloried the -offensive pronunciation in their verse, that retarded the progress of -the received sound of the diphthong which finally triumphed. - -The early lexicographers were divided on the pronunciation of _vase_. -Indeed, two centuries have not sufficed to unite their successors in -perfect harmony on this question. The word to-day vacillates between -four received pronunciations. The great unwashed pronounce _vase_ to -rhyme with _base_ and _case_. Some pronounce the word as if written -“vaz” with “the broad a.” Others, associating it with its French -equivalent, pronounce the word “vauze.” Others still pronounce it -so as to rhyme with _amaze_ and _gaze_. Of these four pronunciations -the first is the most prevalent to-day, as it also was two centuries -ago. According to the Century Dictionary, the word was introduced into -English during the latter half of the seventeenth century, and after -the analogy of words of its class, it would naturally be pronounced so -as to rhyme with _case_ and _base_. But the recency of the word and -its familiar association with art have given rise to the attempt to -make it conform to the analogy of the French pronunciation and sound -it as if written “vauze.” The early occasional spelling of the word -as _vause_ doubtless contributed somewhat to the extension of this -latter pronunciation. This French pronunciation, says the Century, is -now affected by many. It is worth while to remark, however, that while -the Century recognizes the French pronunciation, it still gives the -preference to the old historic pronunciation, viz., that rhyming with -_case_ and _base_. - -Now, in the eighteenth century some of the orthoepists favored one -pronunciation and some another. Sheridan, Scott, Kenrick, Perry and -Buchanan declared for the pronunciation rhyming with _case_ and _base_. -On the other hand, Smith, Johnston and Walker expressed themselves -in favor of “vaze.” Walker says that he has uniformly heard it so -pronounced, but adds the significant remark that the word is pronounced -according to the French fashion “sometimes by people of refinement; but -this, being too refined for the general ear, is now but seldom heard,” -This French pronunciation, however strange the comment may appear to -us in view of his wide acquaintance with English usage, the late Mr. A. -J. Ellis averred was the most familiar to him. So the struggle between -the several pronunciations of _vase_ continues still, and no one can -say which will ultimately prevail. - -Another interesting illustration of vacillation of usage two centuries -ago is furnished in the pronunciation of _either_ and _neither_. Like -the word _vase_, these words show incidentally how long a time two -pronunciations of the same word may linger in good usage before either -supplants the other. There is to-day probably as much variation in -the pronunciation of _either_ and _neither_ as there was a century -and a half ago. Early in the eighteenth century the _i_ sound was -conceded by some of the orthoepists as permissible in these words. Two -authorities, Buchanan and Johnston, declared for the new pronunciation, -that is, “ither” and “nither.” But since they were both Scotchmen, -their authority was discounted. On the other hand, Sheridan and Walker -recommended the _e_ sound and used their influence to bespeak for -it general endorsement. They recognized the _i_ sound, to be sure, -but only on sufferance. From that day to the present the battle has -waged more or less fiercely between the advocates of these respective -pronunciations of _either_ and _neither_. Which will ultimately -prevail, it is impossible to determine. It may be said, however, that -analogy and history are on the side of the _e_ sound. Yet the _i_ sound -appears to be encroaching at present on the former pronunciation. -There is still another pronunciation of these words which we now -rarely hear. I refer to the old dialectical pronunciation as “ather” -and “nather.” This pronunciation was current in Doctor Johnson’s time, -though it probably did not enjoy the sanction of good usage. On being -asked one day whether he regarded “ither,” or “ether” as the proper -pronunciation of _either_, the old Doctor is said to have blurted out -in his characteristic crabbed manner, “Nather, Sir!” This pronunciation -survives now only as an Irishism. - -Another class of former pronunciations surviving now as an Irishism, -or at best as a provincialism merely, is exemplified by such words -as _nature_, _creature_ and _picture_. In Dryden’s and Pope’s time -these words were pronounced “nater,” “crater” and “picter.”[10] These -pronunciations are preserved still in the Yankee dialect, as shown in -Lowell’s inimitable Biglow Papers, and of course they are frequently -heard on Irish lips. But they long ago dropped out of the speech of -polite society. There is one notable exception found in the word -figure. The variant pronunciation of this word as “figer” survives in -standard English as a heritage from the seventeenth century. - -Quite as instructive an illustration of survivals in pronunciation, -is furnished by the British pronunciation of _clerk_ and _Derby_. The -English, as is well known, pronounce these words as if written “clark” -and “Darby.” They used to pronounce _clergy_ with the same vowel -sound, and many other words besides. But it is a significant sign -of the approaching change in British usage in respect to these words -that a recent British dictionary, the New Historical, in commenting on -_clerk_ admits that the American pronunciation of this word has become -somewhat frequent of late in London and its neighborhood. (Are we to -look upon this as a result of the much-discussed American invasion?) -But our British cousins are still wedded to their Derby (Darby) and -show no sign of abandoning either the old pronunciation or the custom. -Even we Americans cling tenaciously to _serjeant_ and show but little -inclination to make that conform speedily to the analogy of other words -of its class and to pronounce it in accordance with the spelling. -But, no doubt, this word, also, in the course of time, will yield to -the pressure of analogy, and our time-honored _serjeant_, with the -flight of years, is destined to be classed among those pronunciations -that have lost caste. The early orthoepists uniformly pronounced this -entire class of words as our British cousins pronounce them at the -present time, that is, as if they were written “clark,” “sarjeant” and -so on. Indeed, it is the spelling that has been the main factor in -effecting the change in the pronunciation of these words. There is a -strong tendency in English to pronounce a word as it is written, and -this tendency has been asserting itself with ever increasing force -since English spelling has been crystallized and thereby rendered less -subject to preference or caprice. - -A constantly recurring question, which never ceased to vex the spirit -of the early orthoepists, was, where to place the accent in the case -of _contemplate_, _demonstrate_, _illustrate_ and similar words of -classical origin. The question at issue here is whether the stress -shall fall upon the antepenultimate or the penultimate. Even with all -the accumulated knowledge of the centuries we are no nearer a solution -of this perplexing question than were the Elizabethans. Shakespeare -could say indifferently _cónfiscate_ or _confíscate_, _démonstrate_ or -_demónstrate_. Here the battle has been waged between the scholars, on -the one hand, who insist upon strict propriety, and the uninitiated, -on the other, who follow the line of least resistance and by intuition -place the accent upon the initial syllable. As is evident at a glance, -these words come to us from the classics. The scholars therefore, -somewhat pedantically, insist upon retaining the stress on the syllable -which bore it in the original Latin or Greek. _Per contra_, the common -people, who know “little Latin and less Greek” and care not a fig for -the original accent, instinctively throw the stress upon the first -syllable, in keeping with their feeling for their mother tongue. This -feeling for the language, which the Germans call “_Sprachgefühl_,” -is, after all, a safer guide than the rules laid down by the pedants. -Candor compels us to admit that the popular tendency is more in harmony -with the genius of our vernacular. But the scholars have made a brave -fight for what we may demoniate abstract propriety, and the result, -thus far, is a drawn battle. Each side has scored some points, and -each side has had to make some concessions. Thus _balcony_, _academy_, -_decorous_ and _metamorphosis_, to cite a few concrete examples, have -finally triumphed over the earlier pedantic pronunciations, which -required the accent on the penult of these words. _Horizon_, on the -other hand, stands as a monument of a concession to the learned, since -this word in Elizabethan times had the stress on the initial syllable, -as had also the name of the month July. Popular usage in favor of the -received pronunciation of _auditor_, _senator_, _victory_, _orator_ -and many similar words has achieved a decided triumph over the early -orthoepists, who, it was very obvious, were fighting a losing battle in -their efforts to retain the classical accent. - -It follows that pronunciation is the resultant product of several -forces which are silently but constantly acting upon the living -language. There are, to be sure, various methods of pronunciation, -but the standard is that sanctioned by the most cultivated circles of -society. Now, it is the function of the pronouncing dictionary, and -its sole reason for existence, to determine and record the usage of -the most cultured classes. But here is where the rub comes. This is -the stumbling-block in the way of the lexicographers. It may seem, -upon first blush, that the task of the orthoepist is easy enough. But -not so in actual practice. Countless and insuperable difficulties -soon begin to loom up a little ahead in the path of the intending -orthoepist, and he finds, to his regret and his occasional disgust, -that the way he has marked out for himself is not strewn with roses. It -is an arduous undertaking which holds out but meager hope of successful -accomplishment, to make an accurate record of the pronunciation -received in any large class of society. The labor and trouble are -multiplied many times when an attempt is made to determine the best -orthoepical usage in a democracy. There is really no absolute standard -of pronunciation in English and there can not be, from the very nature -of the case, as Professor Lounsbury has clearly demonstrated in his -recent luminous book on this subject. - -Yet it is unquestionably true that the pronouncing dictionary is -constantly making for uniformity of pronunciation. There is far less -difference in English orthoepy at the beginning of the twentieth -century, even despite the present diversity of good usage, than there -was at the beginning of the eighteenth century. A glance at the history -of the usage, if we may trust Professor Lounsbury, an eminent authority -on English pronunciation, will readily convince the reader of this -fact. This result is the direct outgrowth of the increased facilities -for intercourse between communities, and of the gradual diffusion of -education which the last two centuries have witnessed. With the spread -of education there go along those habits of speech which are generally -recognized to be in accord with best usage and which therefore have -most to commend them to popular favor. But till men cease to exercise -the right of choice in the mode of utterance, till men prefer, for the -sake of uniformity, to say exclusively “hóstǐle” and not “hostĩle,” -“sérvǐle” and not “servle,” “rise” and not “rice,” to mention an -example of variant usage, so long will there probably be a diversity of -pronunciation and the consequent need for the pronouncing dictionary. -This consummation so devoutly to be wished we may expect at the -Greek Kalends. We may rest assured, therefore, that the pronouncing -dictionary is here to stay. - -Every man has his preference as to his pronouncing dictionary, which -he regards with more or less confidence and, may be, reverence, as -his final authority. To this he resorts in all orthoepical questions, -for final solution. This, of course, is a legitimate function of the -pronouncing dictionary. The fact is, the vocabulary of the average -educated man is so extremely limited and the vocabulary of the language -so extremely copious that there are thousands of words of a technical -character which even the most accomplished scholars have never once -heard uttered. The average educated man who knows that English spelling -is a very untrustworthy guide to pronunciation is perforce driven to -consult his Webster, or his Worcester, or his Standard, or mayhap his -Century. Only then can he pronounce an unfamiliar English word with any -assurance of propriety. - -Notwithstanding the fact that every educated man has his favorite -dictionary, it is probably true that no man’s pronunciation is in -entire accord with the dictionary he habitually follows. The late -Mr. Ellis gave a suggestive test which I believe has never been -successfully challenged. “I do not remember,” said he, “ever meeting -with a person of general education, or even literary habits, who -could read off, without hesitation, the whole of such a list of words -as: bourgeois, demy, actinism, velleity, batman, beaufin, brevier, -rowlock, fusil, flugleman, vase, tassel, buoy, oboe, archimandrite, -etc., and give them in each case the same pronunciation as is assigned -in any given pronouncing dictionary now in use.” Let the reader -try these test words and see whether he pronounces this short list -according to any received authority in use at the present day. - -It may not prove an altogether unprofitable inquiry how our pronouncing -dictionaries are made. Such an inquiry, if pursued, may teach us -somewhat of the methods of the orthoepists to ascertain good usage. -The method formerly adopted was very much after this fashion: The -lexicographer studies in his own library the pronouncing dictionary -of everybody who has taken the pains to compile one, whether he be -an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scotchman, or an American. He compares -these several dictionaries and records their variations. From these he -selects those pronunciations which, for any special reason, commend -themselves to his individual taste or judgment. These are usually such -pronunciations as he is accustomed to hear or himself to use. These are -published with the stamp of the lexicographer’s authority and approval, -and the dictionary is sent out into the world as so-and-so’s record of -the most approved usage. - -This was doubtless the way pronouncing dictionaries used to be -compiled. But we may believe that this method is not the course -ordinarily followed by the authors of our best modern dictionaries. -If our best standard dictionaries to-day were made in this fashion, -their authority would richly deserve to be heavily discounted for -such carelessness of method. But greater efforts are made by the most -recent orthoepists, we may believe, to determine the accepted usage -in polite society. Yet, after all, the personal equation enters as an -important factor into the compilation of every pronouncing dictionary. -The author or authors who compile the dictionary naturally follow -their own preferences and prejudices in the matter of pronunciation; -and their results, even at best, repose on very restricted and -imperfect observation. An orthoepist ought not to be cocksure and -dogmatic. Indeed, the proper attitude of the author of a dictionary -is that of the late Mr. Ellis. It was quite natural that a man of his -superior scholarship and rare orthoepical attainments should have been -frequently asked as to the proper pronunciation of a particular word. - -“It has not unfrequently happened,” observes Mr. Ellis in his -monumental work on “Early English Pronunciation,” in reference to his -practice, when appealed to as an authority, “It has not unfrequently -happened that the present writer has been appealed to respecting the -pronunciation of a word. He generally replies that he is accustomed -to pronounce it in such or such a way, and has often to add that he -has heard others pronounce it differently, but that he has no means of -deciding which pronunciation ought to be adopted, or even of saying -which is the more customary.” - -This attitude will, no doubt, commend itself to the favor of the -reflecting and judicious man much more forcibly than that spirit of -assumed infallibility which is a sure sign, in an orthoepist, of -insufficient knowledge and lack of preparation for his work. The -business of a lexicographer is to record what good usage authorizes, -not to tell us what we shall not use. The orthoepist who goes farther, -and dogmatically asserts that a given pronunciation is correct and -another incorrect, transcends the legitimate bounds of his province. -Moreover, he arouses suspicion in the minds of the thoughtful as to -his trustworthiness as a guide in matters of pronunciation. For no -orthoepist records all the pronunciations sanctioned by good usage, and -no one therefore can affirm positively that a given pronunciation of a -word may not be warranted by reputable usage in some quarter. Even so -high an authority and careful an observer as Ellis lapsed into error in -his comment upon the pronunciation of _trait_, claiming that the silent -final _t_ was an unfailing shibboleth of British practice. As a matter -of fact, the pronunciation of the final letter of _trait_, as Professor -Lounsbury has clearly shown,[11] had been recognized by English -orthoepists as allowable for more than a century. It is manifest that -one can not afford to be very positive in English orthoepy: if he -is, he will be compelled either to retract or to qualify some of his -sweeping statements. - -The pronouncing dictionary is, as a general rule, a good guide to -standard usage, though it can not be relied upon implicitly. When -the orthoepists are all agreed upon a particular pronunciation, one -ought to be very chary of using one’s customary or pet pronunciation -that differs. The chances are that it is not in good repute. But -when, on the contrary, the orthoepists themselves differ, one may -reasonably infer that no statement of any one of them about the proper -pronunciation of a word, however positive it may be, ought to be -recognized as a binding authority. For no pronouncing dictionary is an -absolutely final authority. Nor can it ever justly claim to be, since -the pronouncing dictionary purports to record only such pronunciations -as are sanctioned by good usage, and good usage ever varies with the -living speech, which, like all living things, is always slowly changing -from century to century. The change is sometimes so gradual that -hardly the lapse of a century will reveal it. Again, for one reason or -another, it is so rapid in development that even a generation suffices -to record it. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[8] See A Question of Preference in Spelling. - -[9] See Vulgarisms With A Pedigree. - -[10] See Vulgarisms With A Pedigree. - -[11] The Standard of Pronunciation in English, p. 230. - - - - -VULGARISMS WITH A PEDIGREE. - - -Never before was there so much enthusiasm manifested in linguistic -studies as during the last quarter of a century, and even yet there -is no indication of a waning interest. Not only have languages been -studied in their relation to one another, but dialects also have come -in for their share of attention in the pursuit of these studies. -Nor has our own country been backward in contributing, through its -dialectal and various philological associations, its quota to the -science of philology. Authors in different parts of the country have -written long and (it must be confessed, sometimes) tedious stories in -the individual dialects of their respective localities. There are books -in the dialect of the negro, as, for example, Thomas Nelson Page’s, to -mention only one writer of a large class, those in the dialect of the -Tennessee mountains, as, for example, Miss Murfee’s books, those in -the dialect of the “Georgia cracker,” as the stories of Joel Chandler -Harris, and a host of others in various parts of the country. These -books are almost like the sands of the seashore for number. - -So numerous and varied are the local dialects in this country that -a contributor to the North American Review, some few years ago, -ventured the thesis that from the very nature of the diverse and -varied character of our local dialects, there can not be any such -thing as a great national novel in the United States. While this, it -must be admitted, is a somewhat extreme view, to which many do not -feel prepared to subscribe, the fact yet remains that there are marked -dialectal peculiarities in the spoken language of certain localities. -These dialectal peculiarities, however, are fast disappearing before -the onward march of the unifying influence of education, the printing -press, and the railroad. When the leavening power of education has -permeated the entire population of the country, there will result -uniformity of speech, and dialectal variations from the common norm -will linger but as a tradition. - -The dialect authors, in the meantime, are doing the reading public a -service in furnishing it with entertaining stories of an elevating -character. Moreover, some of them at least, as for example, Page, -Harris and others, are rendering literature and science an ulterior -service, consciously or unconsciously, in preserving in their books -types of a people and their speech which a wave of oblivion is rapidly -sweeping away. - -If one will examine the speech of the negro and the native-born -illiterate white, it matters not whether the latter be from New -England, or from the South, one will find that, excepting certain -provincialisms peculiar to their respective homes, their language has -much in common, and to the student of historic English, it exhibits -indisputable evidence of its affinity with the English of the -seventeenth century. This is obvious from such words as _hand-kercher_, -_ar_ (air), _pint_ (point), _pison_ (poison), _gwine_ (going), _arrant_ -(errand), _cratur_ (creature), _arth_ (earth), all of which are common -alike to the “Yankee dialect” and to the negro dialect. The student who -is familiar with the development of the English tongue will at once -recognize these as standard, according to the received pronunciation -of the seventeenth century. But in the development of the language, -these pronunciations subsequently fell into disuse and were discarded -by standard English. They still survived, however, in the lower stratum -of society among the poor and illiterate who, denied the privileges -and advantages of an education and therefore ignorant of the most -elementary principles of grammar, inherited this speech from their -ancestors and handed it down, with but little change, from generation -to generation to their children. - -The language of the seventeenth century was brought to America by the -early settlers and was taught the slaves, and the tongue which the -illiterate negroes then learned to speak they have preserved, without -any material change, down to the present generation. Since this is -the case, we can not then be surprised to find upon examination that -many of their dialectal pronunciations and locutions are to be traced -back to classic authors of an earlier period, yea, to Shakespeare -himself. In this sense it is doubtless true that many of the fossilized -pronunciations of our illiterates are much nearer the language of, and -would therefore be more intelligible to, Shakespeare and Milton than -present standard English. - -Every one who has ever heard the old negro preacher giving an -“exhortation” at the close of his fervid “sarmon” knows very well that, -though the old man’s heart was perhaps right and himself on the way -to the kingdom, his conscience never for a moment troubled him about -his loose grammar. Notwithstanding his sanctification and his ecstatic -anticipation of the joys of the kingdom for which he was bound, he -had no conscientious scruples about “axin’” his “ole marster” if the -latter was at all tardy in offering him the desired help. Perhaps many -of those who were so familiar with the lingo of the old preacher never -reflected that his language, like his heart, was, after all, not very -far wrong and entirely without precedent when he “axed” for something. -He was but obeying the scriptural injunction, which, according to -Tyndale’s version, reads: “Axe and it shall be geven you.” Nor do they -know that he was following, all unwittingly, to be sure, the example -set by the first English printer, Caxton, who, in the preface to his -edition of Vergil’s Aeneid, used precisely the same expression. If then -the old parson blundered, as, according to our modern standard, he did, -he at all events blundered in good company. - -In Chaucer, “the first finder of our faire language,” as his ardent -disciple Occleve rapturously, though quaintly, called him, we find the -same word. Here we find also forms long since fossilized, though still -preserved in the speech of the untutored, such as _kiver_, _driv_, -_holp_, _writ_, _rid_, etc. In “Much Ado About Nothing” Dogberry, -albeit he dislocates the dictionary in speaking of that villain who, -he prophesies, would be condemned to everlasting redemption, yet uses -grammar which, for his day, was above reproach, when he exclaimed: “O -that I had been writ down an ass!” - -So we must acknowledge that no violence was done to the language, -however our sense of propriety may be shocked, when a century or so -ago a Londoner remarked to his friend who had come up from his home -in the country to see the play of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” and who was -copiously bespattered with mud, as a result of his ride: “You came up -to town, I suppose, to see Orpheus and _you rid I see_.” It would be -difficult to find in the literature of that period a more felicitous -illustration of a perfectly legitimate play on words which the -contemporary pronunciation permitted. - -Shakespeare, who could not resist the temptation to make a pun whenever -opportunity offered, furnishes additional evidence of his versatility -and ingenuity in his apt recognition of the obsolete pronunciation of -many words of his time, which he turned to good account. Hence so many -of his witticisms. In “Henry IV,” for instance, Falstall says: “If -reasons were a plentiful as blackberries, I would give no man a reason -upon compulsion,” thus playing upon the old pronunciation of _raisins_ -with which we are all familiar upon the lips of the unlettered. Thus -he plays upon the antiquated pronunciation of _Rome_ as _room_, when, -in “Julius Caesar,” Cassius says of Caesar’s vaulting ambition which -o’erleaped itself: - - “Now is it Rome indeed and Roome enough, - When there is in it but one only man.” - -One of the conundrums of that period, which, by the way, could only -have belonged to that period, illustrates the antiquated pronunciation -of _chair_ as _cheer_, still current among the illiterate. “Why is a -stout man always happy?” The answer was, “Because he is cheerful (chair -full).” - -It is needless to multiply random illustrations. We owe a lasting -debt of gratitude to the philologists who have labored in this field -and illuminated this subject which before was enveloped with almost -Cimmerian darkness. These amenities of philology which have been -mentioned above are but an incident of the arduous and laborious -pursuits of those philologists. Let us consider for a while some of -the results of their research which prove how the English language has -changed. - -Every student who has given any attention to the historical development -of our speech knows that it has changed from age to age no less in -form than in pronunciation. Indeed, it could not be a living tongue if -it did not constantly change. The oldest form of the language which -we call Anglo-Saxon gradually changed in form and sound till Middle -English times, and then it continued to change even more rapidly -till modern times. It has undergone no small change even since the -days of Elizabeth, when our great dramatists spoke and wrote it. So -great are these changes through which our vernacular has passed that -a modern could not converse with one of his Saxon forebears of the -time of the good and great King Alfred except through an interpreter -of his own mother-tongue. If any man is skeptical on this point, -let him test himself by trying to modernize offhand a passage from -one of Alfred’s own works. Indeed, it is not necessary to go so far -back. For Shakespeare, not to mention Chaucer, may prove a rock of -offence and would no doubt appear to most of us to speak in an unknown -tongue, could we hear him speak. Surely the commentators find no end -of difficulties in interpreting his writings which have been preserved -to us. Even were we to approach Shakespeare from the vantage ground -of the famous Tieck and Schlegel translation which some patriotic -German scholars with more zeal than knowledge assert is better than the -original, no doubt, we should still encounter many hard sayings in the -master dramatist’s language. Much less therefore should we be able to -understand his spoken tongue, since spoken speech, in the very nature -of things, changes far more than written language. - -However, it is not our purpose here to use Shakespeare as a concrete -illustration to show how our speech has changed even in the last few -centuries. We have chosen two other authors who flourished long after -the voice of the “sweet swan of Avon” had ceased to sing and his bones -had moulded back to dust in the quaint parish church of Stratford. -These writers are the distinguished satirists, the vigorous Dryden -and the didactic Pope. Their rhymes are a fairly accurate index to the -standard contemporary pronunciation. - -Dryden has often been taxed with a certain laxity in his rhymes, -and to one not recognizing the difference between the pronunciation -current in England in the seventeenth century and that accepted at -the beginning of the twentieth century, the criticism would appear to -be well founded. But it must be borne in mind that the sounds of the -English vowels, especially, have undergone a considerable change since -Dryden’s day. We should not be surprised then if, when we apply the -present standard of English pronunciation to his rhymes, they seem -somewhat imperfect. However, this is not intended to extenuate Dryden’s -false rhymes, of which there are confessedly some; for he had neither -a sensitive ear nor a tender conscience in his work for the stage. His -motto expressed in his own words was, - - “He who lives to please, must please to live.” - -Yet Dryden was, after all, no greater sinner in this respect than -others of his day, or even of the present day, whose verses furnish -such monstrosities as _has_ rhyming with _was_, _love_ consorting with -_move_,--rhymes which “keep the word of promise to the eye and break it -to the ear.” Let us now cite a few of the received pronunciations of -the seventeenth century as indicated in the rhymes of that day. It will -be observed that where these are still lingering in our speech to-day, -they are regarded simply as vulgarisms. - -Such words as _please_, _these_, _seize_, _severe_, _sea_, _speak_, -_complete_, and the like were pronounced, in the seventeenth century -and in the first half of the eighteenth, in a way which, to the modern -ear, is decidedly suggestive of the Irish “brogue.” For both Dryden and -Pope pronounced these words _plase_, _thase_, _saze_, _savare_, _say_, -_spake_, _complate_: and this was the received pronunciation during -that period. Pope, therefore, whose delicate ear was easily fascinated -by the vigor and musical cadence of his master Dryden preserves but the -aroma of the old tea, in that heroic couplet upon a mock heroic subject: - - “Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey, - Dost sometimes counsel take--and sometimes tea.” - -Likewise, again he says: - - “Soft yielding minds to water glide away, - And sip, with nymphs, their elemental tea.” - -Dryden pertinently asks, in his Absalom and Achitophel: - - “But when should people strive their bonds to break, - If not when kings are negligent or weak?” - -So Pope likewise pronounced _weak_ rhyming it with _take_. Both he and -Dryden offer numerous examples of _speak_ rhyming with _wake_, _sphere_ -with _bear, hear_ with _care_, _retreat_ and _complete_ with _great_, -and _treat_ with the French _tête_, as in Pope’s imitation of Horace: - - “The guests withdrawn had left the treat, - And down the mice sate, tête-à-tête.” - -In the Hind and the Panther Dryden uses the now vulgar pronunciation of -_clear_ thus: - - “The sense is intricate, ’tis only clear - What vowels and consonants are there.” - -But this was a perfectly faultless rhyme then and was sanctioned by -the best usage. So the vulgar pronunciation of _key_ is the only open -sesame to this perfect rhyme in Dryden’s time: - - “’Twere pity treason at his door to lay, - Who makes heaven’s gate a lock to its own key.” - -Here also occurs the obsolete pronunciation of _says_ rhyming with -_days_, and _said_ is wedded to _maid_ and even _have_ consorts with -_slave_ and _wave_, all of which pronunciations have long ago been -repudiated by standard English and survive now only in the speech of -the rustics and upon Irish lips. - -The story is told of an old Scotchman who, like some others not of -Scotch descent, occasionally draw their inspiration from an illicit -source that during a spell of serious illness he was visited by the -good minister who pointed out to him his weakness and endeavored -to persuade him to leave off his bibulous habit. When the minister -told the erring Scotchman that in heaven whither he was going there -would be no wine, he impulsively exclaimed: “I dinna ken, but I think -it would be but _dacent_ (decent) to have it on the table.” This is -precisely the way Dryden and Pope pronounced the word _decent_, and the -pronunciation still lingers as a provincialism. - -Pope rhymes _nature_ with _satire_ and makes Craggs exclaim in a -dialogue: - - “Alas, if I am such a creature - To grow the worse for growing greater.” - -This rhyme at that time was perfect to the ear, though false to the -eye. Again, Pope wishes-- - - “That all mankind might that just mean observe, - In which none e’er could surfeit, none could starve.” - -As for the atmosphere, Pope called it _aar_, making the word rhyme -with _star_, and _are_ and _were_ he pronounced occasionally _air_ and -_ware_. These pronunciations, it is interesting to note, are still -heard now and then from the lips of educated men, either as an affected -archaism or more probably from sheer force of a habit of utterance -acquired in youth. - -There is another vulgarism with a pedigree which is especially to be -noted because it is never heard now except from the unlettered. Yet in -the seventeenth century this was the standard pronunciation. We refer -to the obsolete pronunciation of such words as _oblige_, _join_, -_poison_ and the like. In his Epistle to Arbuthnot in which Pope -pilloried so many of his contemporary poetasters and there left them to -the vulgar gaze of all subsequent ages, among others he damned Addison -with faint praise as-- - - “Dreading e’en fools, by flatterers besieged, - And so obliging that he ne’er obliged.” - -Our _join_, _poison_, _point_, _soil_, _spoil_, and so on, would have -offended the ear of Dryden and Pope, who invariably said _jine_, -_pison_, _pint_, etc. In this respect the speech of our rustics is the -speech which Dryden and Pope spoke, though their faith and morals are -probably not those which these authors held. - -In the words of Pope himself:-- - - “Waller was smooth, but Dryden taught to join - The varying sense, the full-resounding line, - The long majestic march and energy divine.” - - “Good nature and good sense must ever join; - To err is human; to forgive, divine.” - - “’Tis not enough, taste, judgment, learning join; - In all you speak, let truth and candor shine.” - - “In grave Quintilian’s copious work we find - The justest rules and clearest method join’d.” - -It is interesting to observe that we still say _choir_. These words -with the _oi_-diphthong are well-nigh all of Anglo-French origin, -except _boil_, in the sense of tumor, where the Anglo-Saxon _byle_ -proves that its development into the now vulgar _bile_ is regular. But -in standard English the word has been wrested from its normal course -of development, probably through association in the popular mind with -the verb _boil_, or to avoid confusion with _bile_ (secretion of -the liver), and its spelling has been changed to _boil_ to satisfy, -in Lowell’s apt phrase, the logic of the eye. But let it be said -parenthetically that logic is among the least potent factors in the -development of a language. - -In the light of these facts, then, we appreciate more fully the -significance of the words of Ellis, in his monumental work on Early -English Pronunciation: “For the polite sounds of a past generation -are the _bêtes noires_ of the present. Who at present, with any claim -to “_eddication_” would _jine_ in praising the _pints_ of a _picter_? -But certainly there was a time when _education_, _join_, _points_ and -_picture_ would have sounded equally strange.” - -In the Yankee dialect, as we learn from Lowell’s admirable essay on -this theme in the introduction to his Biglow Papers, “the _u_ in the -ending _ture_ is always shortened, making _ventur_, _natur_, _pictur_, -and so on. This was common also among the educated of the last -generation. I am inclined to think it may have been once universal, and -I certainly think it more elegant than the vile _vencher_, _naycher_, -_pickcher_, that have taken its place, sounding like the invention -of a lexicographer to mitigate a sneeze.” When Lowell wrote these -words, very little attention had been given to the study of dialects -and their significance as exhibiting fossilized forms of a language. -But since the publication of Ellis’s excellent work on the early -pronunciation of our mother-tongue, a flood of light has been shed upon -the tortuous path of the history of English sounds. Thus we can be -sure that the speech of our illiterates, however vulgar and antiquated -it may sound to our twentieth century ears, is, at least in many -instances, the polite pronunciation of the seventeenth century. It is -the English which the Pilgrim Fathers brought over with them when they -landed on the shores of the New World. - -So much for the dialect of our illiterates, the _lingua rustica_. Let -us now consider the Irish dialect which is another fruitful source -of vulgarisms with a pedigree. A moment’s reflection will suffice to -convince the reader that this speech is very closely allied in origin -with the English brought to America by the early settlers. - -It is well known that the English language, as spoken by the Irish, -has a peculiarity of utterance commonly called “the Irish brogue” and -differs materially from standard English. Why this clearly marked and -distinctive mode of utterance which differentiates the English speech -on Irish lips from the same language as spoken in England and America? -As a matter of fact the English spoken by the educated sons of Erin is -the same as that used in England and America. But the language of the -Irish in the rural districts of Ireland and of those who have emigrated -to America is something quite different, and varies considerably in -idiom and pronunciation from standard English. It is this which is -usually termed “the Irish brogue.” - -To get at the origin of this lingo we must go back to the time when -Ireland was settled by the English. The tongue originally spoken in -Ireland was of course the Old Irish, or Gaelic, and this was very -closely related to the Welsh and the speech of the ancient Britons who -resisted the Roman invasion under Julius Caesar. This was the tongue -of the whole of Britain when our Saxon forefathers first found their -way across the Channel from Northern Germany. This therefore was the -vernacular of King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table mentioned -in the Arthurian legends. - -As far back as the twelfth century, history records that the English -began to plant colonies on the Emerald Isle and to settle parts of it, -such as Forth and Bargay. But these were unimportant from our present -point of view. The English settlements in Ireland from which the -English language spread and diffused itself over the country were those -made in Ulster and the north during the reign of James I, in 1611. This -English emigration was re-enforced by the invasion of Cromwell, in -1649. So then it was during the seventeenth century that the domain of -the Irishman’s native tongue was invaded by the English speech. - -It will be recalled that, inasmuch as Ireland was originally populated -by the Celtic race, it follows that the genuine Irishman is really a -Celt, not a Saxon, although he now speaks English as his venacular. He -was therefore of the same race and blood as the ancient Britons whom -our Saxon forefathers found in possession of the country when they -first came to Britain from the Continent. The British people represent -a fusion of these two races--Celtic and Saxon--with the Saxon element -predominating. According to Matthew Arnold’s dictum, it is from the -Celtic blood flowing in the veins of the Englishman that he gets his -sentiment. In his composite being, the modern Englishman combines -with his original steady-going Saxon temperament something of the -Celt’s instinct for sentiment, love of beauty, charm and spirituality, -together with something of the Norman’s tact for business. According -to Matthew Arnold, therefore, there is a commingling of these three -streams in the English race, the Celtic and the Norman both being -merged in the Saxon. As the defect of his qualities the Celt had -ineffectualness and self-will,--qualities which still mark the Irish -genius. The words of that eminent nineteenth century critic are very -suggestive as indicating the influence of the Celtic spirit upon the -Saxon, whether we are prepared to share his opinion or not. “If I -were asked,” remarks he in his admirable essay On the Study of Celtic -Literature, “where English poetry got these three things--its turn for -style, its turn for melancholy, and its turn for natural magic, for -catching and rendering the charm of nature in a wonderfully near and -vivid way--I should answer, with some doubt, that it got much of its -turn for style from a Celtic source; with less doubt, that it got much -of its melancholy from a Celtic source; with no doubt at all, that -from a Celtic source it got nearly all of its magic.” - -But to return to the language of the Irish. When the English settlers -emigrated to Ulster, they carried with them the English speech of the -seventeenth century. A moment’s reflection teaches us that this was the -pronunciation of the days of Milton and Dryden which was transplanted -into Ireland. Now, it must be borne in mind that the English of that -century was transferred to a country where the native speech and method -of utterance were entirely different from those employed in England. -The effect of this was to cause some modification in the transplanted -language when the English speech came into actual contact with the -native Irish tongue on Irish soil. When English was diffused over -Ireland the native speech of which differed both in its body of sounds -and in its distinctive method of enunciation from the triumphant -language, the natives learned to speak the new tongue with their own -characteristic mode of utterance. It was but natural therefore that -the English speech should undergo a considerable alteration on Irish -lips. In similar circumstances the supplanted tongue always produces a -greater or less change in its victorious rival, not only in form, but -also in construction and idiom. Witness here the triumph of Anglo-Saxon -over the Celtic of the native Britons. As an illustration of the change -in idiom take this example of “Pidgin-English,” spoken in the treaty -ports of China. In one of those ports, an enterprising merchant with -a keen relish for the English shillings, but with little feeling for -the English tongue, is reputed to have put out over his shop door a -sign with this legend: “Groceries for sale, retail and whole-tail!” An -illustration of the difference in mode of utterance between two tongues -is furnished by the German, or even the French, method of pronouncing -our English _th_-sound. What inherent difficulty a native German or -Frenchman, in his unstudied utterance, encounters in pronouncing -such simple words as _the_, _then_, _kith_, etc.! On the other hand, -one whose vernacular is English experiences as great embarrassment -in pronouncing, without studied effort and practice, the German -_ch_-sound, as in _Bach_, _Ich_, etc., or the characteristic French _u_ -sound as in _fût_, _eut_, _pu_, etc. - -When therefore the Irish began to learn English in the seventeenth -century, they encountered certain difficulties peculiar to the English -speech. The dental combinations in our English tongue appear to have -proved a stumbling block to the Irish mode of utterance, and hence -such grotesque pronunciations as _tthrash_ for _thrash_, _stthraitch_ -for _stretch_, _Satthirday_ for _Saturday_ and _scoundthrel_ for -_scoundrel_. In his native speech the Celt trilled his _r’s_, and -nothing was more natural then than that he should do the same thing -when he began to speak English. So to the present day the _r_ is -emphatically trilled on Irish lips, although it is decidedly un-English -to trill it. These few examples will serve to indicate the character -of some of the difficulties inherent in the English language which the -Irishman encountered in his effort to speak it. But there were other -difficulties than those of utterance which had to be overcome in -mastering the spoken tongue. - -Furthermore, the English speech on Irish soil did not develop and -flourish as it did in its own habitat in England. On the contrary, it -always remained an exotic and it never kept pace in its growth and -development with the language on English soil. If Ireland had been -first depopulated and then settled by the British, the variations in -speech would have been much less conspicuous, even had they existed -at all. But that was not the case. Those conditions came much nearer -being fulfilled here in America when the Puritans and Cavaliers came -over to the New World, bringing with them practically the same English -as that carried into the Emerald Isle. For the first settlements in -America by the English colonists correspond in point of time to those -made in Ulster,--that is, the early seventeenth century. But the -English language in America was not contaminated by contact with the -Indian language and, with the exception of a few geographical names, -our speech shows almost no trace of Indian influence. Consequently -the English speech on American soil has had an entirely different -development from that which it had on Irish soil, although it is a -transplanted language in both instances. The explanation is found -entirely in the difference of environment. However, there are certain -fossilized phrases, provincialisms, vulgarisms, or what not, in -American English, which betray the affinity of the language of the -early settlers of America with that of the early settlers of Ireland. -Witness here the coincidence of our vulgar _chist_ (chest), _ingine_ -(engine), _quair_ (queer), _hade_ (head), _afeard_ (afraid), _weepin_ -(weapon), _kag_ (keg), _rassel_ (wrestle), _arrant_ (errand), _deef_ -(deaf), _baste_ (beast), _sarmin_ (sermon), etc., with the Irish -pronunciation of these words. - -There is one marked Hibernicism which has now passed far beyond the -Irish dialect. Probably many of those from whose delicate mouths we -hear it so frequently are not aware of its Irish origin. Let it be -said by way of parenthesis that the writer does not intend this remark -as an impeachment of that charming pronunciation which boasts the -sanction of those arriving at their conclusions by instinct rather than -reason; nor is the remark made in a spirit of stoical indifference to -refined and delicate feelings like that of Balthazar, the infatuated -chemist in Balzac’s Search for the Absolute. When the beautiful eyes -of his devoted wife filled with tears as she pleaded with him not to -sacrifice all his fortune and even herself in his search for diamonds, -he ruthlessly exclaimed: “Tears! I have decomposed them; they contain -a little phosphate of lime, chloride of sodium, mucin and water.” The -Hibernicism in question is the pronunciation of “gyirl,” so wide-spread -and carefully cultivated by delicate mouths in Virginia as to be -regarded a shibboleth of those “to the manner born.” (It is of course -the prerogative of woman to change her mind,--and her name, too, if she -so elects.) Other examples of this Hibernicism are _cyart_, _cyarve_, -_scyar_, _gyarden_, _gyarlic_, _gyuide_, _cyow_ and _nyow_, which -last approximates a feline note if uttered in a falsetto. The Irish -pronunciation of _sure_ extends far beyond that jargon now. Perhaps -the reader has heard the story of the good bishop’s wife who twitted -her husband about saying _shore_ for _sure_, and who, when reminded -that she pronounced the word the same way, indignantly replied, “Why, -to be _shore_, I do not!” - -It must not be inferred from what has been said that the English spoken -in all parts of Ireland is uniform. On the contrary, it differs vastly -and varies with the locality. In some parts, indeed, English is not -spoken at all. But where it is spoken, it bears a striking resemblance, -as has been pointed out, to the English of the times of Dryden and -Pope, which was fossilized by emigration. The “brogue” itself is due to -the characteristic Celtic habit of utterance, and consists mostly in -the intonation, “which appears,” according to Murray, “full of violent -ups and downs, or rather precipices and chasms of force and pitch, -almost disguising the sound to English ears.” - -Thus it is evident that not a few of the expressions which now survive -only as provincialisms, or vulgarisms, in the speech of the illiterate -were once in entire accord with polite usage. Many of the locutions -heard now in the negro dialect can boast really an aristocratic -pedigree and, several generations ago, enjoyed the sanction of the -highest orthoepical authority. But these pronunciations, somehow, -drifted out of the main current of standard speech and at present -appear only as jetsam and flotsam in the back-water of our English -tongue. Yet they serve to indicate how extensively our language has -been altered and modified even in modern times, after it found its way -to the New World. The modifications and changes, however, both in idiom -and pronunciation, would have taken place, even if the English speech -had never been transplanted into foreign territory. Conclusive proof of -this is furnished by a comparison of present-day British English with -the English of two centuries ago as spoken in the mother country; and -this, though not explicitly stated, is implied in the discussion of the -theme in the foregoing paragraphs. - - - - -BRITICISMS VERSUS AMERICANISMS. - - -It is a recognized fact that there is a considerable variation in -the English language as spoken by the two great branches of the -Anglo-Saxon race. The English people differ from the American people -in the use of our common speech not only in their characteristic mode -of pronunciation and orthography, but they also differ from us in no -less striking a manner in the use of certain idioms and household -phrases, which constitute the small change of our every-day speech. -This difference is the natural outgrowth of the separation of the two -peoples by the estranging ocean, which is of necessity a great barrier -to complete intercourse. To be sure, the fact that the English people -and the American people have distinct national entities with the -resulting difference, during the last hundred years, of national ideals -and pursuits, has had the natural and inevitable effect of widening the -breach between the speech of the two countries. No doubt the present -variation will be accentuated more and more as the years go by, and the -language of Great Britain and of America, far from becoming absolutely -identical in pronunciation and idiom with the flight of centuries, will -go on developing with an ever-increasing divergence from the common -standard. If this be true--and certainly the facts as to the present -tendency seem to warrant such a conclusion--the final result may be the -unique linguistic phenomenon of two separate and distinct tongues, if -such a thing be not an impossibility. - -Before pointing out the variations of our American English from British -English, it may be interesting to note the source of our American -vernacular, and the contributing causes of the chief variations from -the authoritative standard of the mother country. - -When our Saxon forefathers found their way to the shores of this -western continent and here established their permanent abode, the -settlers naturally brought with them the language of their native -country. This was, of course, the noble tongue of Shakespeare and -Milton. Our British cousins who criticize our English so freely -and cast reproach upon it as if it were a mere jargon, a barbarous -_patois_, evidently lose sight of the fact that it boasts the same high -pedigree as their own much-vaunted Elizabethan speech. When the English -language was first transplanted in American soil, it was identical in -orthography, orthoepy and idiom with the speech of the mother country. -But the transplanted tongue, having a new and different habitat, -began at once to adapt itself, however imperceptibly, to its changed -environ and new conditions. Nor was the connection with the parent -stock a sufficiently close and vital bond of union to prevent the -English speech on American lips from undergoing at least some slight -modification in the course of time, as a natural consequence of the -altered conditions in the new world. - -It is a well-established linguistic principle that a language -inevitably undergoes a slight change, determined by the varying -conditions, as long as it is spoken. When a tongue ceases to be spoken, -then and only then does it cease to change and become a dead language, -as, for instance, Latin and Greek. This fact of the gradual change in a -living language is demonstrated through the difficulty one experiences -in understanding the English of Chaucer, or even of Shakespeare, for -the matter of that, although he is not so far removed from the present -age. If a living tongue underwent no alteration with the lapse of -years, then why should not Anglo-Saxon be as readily intelligible to us -as modern English? - -Furthermore, a language is affected in its development by contact with -a foreign tongue and by outside influences, such as the climate. The -first of these reasons is so apparent to all that it hardly deserves -comment. But not so the second. Yet the influence of climate on a -living language is very fruitful of change. Ready proof of this is -furnished in our own country in the soft, musical utterance of the -south in contrast with the rather shrill and forceful habits of -enunciation characteristic of the north. In Europe, for example, the -vast preponderance of the harsh, guttural character of the German -tongue offers a glaring contrast to the smooth, liquid notes of the -pure Tuscan speech. This is the reason why Italian appeals so strongly -to music lovers and to all who have an ear trained to be especially -sensitive to sound. Now, this difference between German and Italian, -as respects the musical character of the two languages, is doubtless -to be explained in large measure as the result of climate conditions -extending through many long centuries. If by some violent political -upheaval the Italians were transported to the extreme northern part -of Europe, it is altogether probable that their speech in the course -of centuries would lose much of its native vocalic development, much -of its melody, and become harsh and strident, somewhat like the -Russian language. It follows, therefore, that the English speech on -American soil has undergone some slight modification, in consequence of -climatic influence. Perhaps this explains the variation of the American -pronunciation of the long _o_-sound as in “stone” and “bone” from the -British norm. But the difference in climate between the two countries -is not sufficiently marked to produce any very radical departure. - -A striking feature of the English speech on American lips is the -leveling of the long _a_-sound heard in such words as “past,” “fast,” -“plant,” “command,” “dance,” “path,” etc. This could hardly be the -result of climatic influence, however, for it does not appear that -the climate has had the effect of producing any modification in the -pronunciation of such terms in any part of America. The prevailing -pronunciation of these terms is the same, at the south and at the north -alike. Such a variation must, therefore, be inherent in the natural -growth of the English language on American soil. For it must be borne -in mind that just as the English speech, as any other living organism, -has been growing and developing during the centuries in England, so, -likewise, in America it has been growing and developing during the -last three centuries, but not necessarily in the same manner. Those -employing the language in Great Britain and in the United States are no -longer a homogeneous people with the same national ideals and destiny. -On the contrary, they are two separate and distinct nations with -different forms of government and with different aims and aspirations. -Add to this the fact that the nations have been estranged by political -differences which resulted in wars and that they are separated by -the physical barrier of a vast ocean. In the face of these obstacles -it is not at all surprising that the English speech has not gone on -developing _pari passu_ on both sides of the Atlantic. The wonder is -that the present variations are not really greater and more striking -than they are. - -Another contributing cause of variation of American English from the -British norm must not be overlooked, the more especially as it has -proved a prolific factor. In our new country some conditions of life -arose which were totally unlike those existing in the old country. -Such strange conditions called imperatively for the invention of new -names and thus gave rise to the employment of new phrases and new -locutions. These had to be coined immediately for the emergency. Since -the most distinctive traits of the American are initiative and wealth -of resource, no time was lost in making such additions to the English -speech as seemed to supply a felt need, and that, too, without any -special reference to British models and precedents. Hence a large -class of terms distinctively American and bearing upon their face -the trade-mark “made in America” found their way into the English -vocabulary on this side of the Atlantic, much to the disgust of the -British precisians and purists, who proceeded forthwith to put these -new coinages under the ban and to brand them with the bend sinister -of “Americanism.” Of this class are many terms indicating mechanical -inventions and appliances, such as “elevator” instead of the British -“lift,” to mention only a single example of a long catalogue of useful -things which American genius has given to the world. Here also belong -numerous words expressing things associated with modern transportation -and rapid transit, such as “street-car,” “railroad,” etc. - -Perhaps it may be well just here to call attention to some of the -ordinary terms and expressions heard in England which strike an -American as being quite odd and peculiar. It is to be presumed that -the good Britons will not be offended if we, using the same license -as themselves, venture to call such expressions “Briticisms.” Let it -be distinctly understood, however, that this is not intended as an -opprobrious epithet, but only to signify a word or an idiom which is -peculiar to Great Britain and not familiar in America. For surely the -English people have the right to employ whatever terms they may choose -both in their colloquial and in their written speech. - -If an American in London wishes to use a language that is readily -understood, when he goes to the ticket-office he must call it the -booking office of the railway station. There he must ask the clerk, or -rather the “clark,” for a first single or a second return, instead of -a single fare (first-class) and a round trip (second class). He must -then have his luggage labeled, not his baggage checked, and, having -secured his brasses or labels, not his checks, he sees his box, not his -trunk, put in the proper van and then takes his seat in the carriage, -not in the car. Before the train starts off, the guards slam the doors -of the carriages, turning the handles, and at the conductor’s whistle -the engine-driver starts his locomotive-engine. The points all being -set for a clear track ahead, the train speeds along the metals, passing -perhaps a shunting-engine about the station and a train of goods-vans. - -The variation of British from American usage is not more noteworthy in -railway parlance than in other circles. If an American goes shopping -in London, he must call for a packet, not a paper, of pins; a reel, -not a spool, of cotton. If he desires to buy a pair of shoes, he must -call for boots, unless he wishes low quarters or Oxford ties; if a -pair of overshoes, he must ask for footholds or galoshes; if a soft -felt hat, he must ask for a squash hat, or if he prefers a Derby, -he must ask for a billy-cock hat or a bowler; if he wishes a pad of -paper, he should request a block of paper. If he goes to a restaurant, -he indicates whether he desires his meat underdone, not rare; if he -wishes corned beef, he calls for silversides of beef; if beets, he -calls for beetroot; if chicken, he calls for fowl; if a cereal of any -sort, he calls for corn; if cold bread, he must order cut bread; and -if he desires pudding, pie, jam, preserves or candy, he must order -sweets, short for sweetmeats. If the waiter should fail for any reason -to give him a napkin, an American should ask for a serviette; and when -he has finished his repast, he is handed a bill which he may pay with -his cheque, or, if he prefers, with the cash from his purse, not his -pocket-book. - -If in England you find no bowl and pitcher in your room, you are -expected, as previously observed,[12] to call for a jug and basin, -since there a pitcher means only a little jug and a bowl is used -exclusively for serving food in. On the street, instead of a letter -box near a lamp post, you see a pillar box near a lamp pillar, and -you perhaps meet a person pushing a perambulator, called “pram” -for short, instead of a baby-carriage. For dry-goods you go to a -mercer’s, where you will find white calico sold for muslin. For cloth -you go to a draper’s, for wooden ware to a turnery, for hardware to -an ironmonger’s, for milk, butter and eggs to a cow-keeper’s or a -dairy, and for fish, game and poultry to a fish shop. If you desire -any of your purchases sent to your address, you order them sent by -express-carrier, carriage paid. - -If at any time you desire the services of a scrub-woman to clean -your apartments, you send for a charwoman. If you wish to have some -furniture upholstered, you request the upholder to undertake the work -for you. If you need the services of a doctor, you call in a medical -man. You must be careful to address surgeons and dentists by the common -democratic title “mister,” since the English custom does not warrant -you to address them as “doctor.” If you are well, to your inquiring -friends you are reported “fit,” if unwell, “seedy,” if sick, invariably -“ill.” - -To an American ear British orthoepy offers quite as noteworthy -surprises as the idiomatic diction does. Of course it is to be -presumed that there should be more or less marked variations in the -matter of habitual utterance of certain sounds, especially the long -_o_- and the long _a_-vowel, as in “fast,” “dance,” “sha’n’t,” etc., -which are at striking variance with American usage. Indeed, these -sounds are so characteristic that, like the English custom of ending -almost every sentence with a question, when clearly natural and not -an affectation, they serve as a shibboleth of British nativity. But -notable eccentricities are to be observed in the English mode of -pronouncing many proper names such as Derby, pronounced “darby”; -Berkeley, pronounced “barclay”; Magdalen, pronounced “maudlin”; -Cadogan, pronounced “kerduggan”; Marylebone, pronounced “merrybone”; -Cholmondeley, pronounced “chumly”; Marlborough, pronounced “mobrer”; -Albany, pronounced so that the first syllable rhymes with Al- in -Alfred, etc. It is unnecessary to multiply examples. Suffice it to -say that there is a large class of these words the spelling and -pronunciation of which seem to an American rather curiously divorced. -Certainly American usage offers no parallel where there is so complete -a divorce of orthoepy from orthography. American usage makes for -phonetic spelling and tends to make the conventional pronunciation and -spelling conform somewhat, at least. - -Having drawn attention to a few Briticisms, we are now prepared to -discuss some of our Americanisms which seem to excite in the pure -minds of the English precisians alternate feelings of disgust and -indignation. Let it be premised, however, that it is not proposed to -include ordinary slang in the present discussion. It must be admitted -that too much slang is employed even in polite circles, not to mention -the speech of those who make no pretense to refinement and culture. -But one should not confuse vulgarisms with so-called Americanisms, -just as one should not confuse vulgarisms with legitimate slang. -The discriminating student distinguishes between ordinary slang and -legitimate slang. The vulgar slang of the street is, of course, to be -universally condemned and tabooed. Legitimate slang, on the contrary, -performs an important function in the development of a living language. -It is not to be inconsiderately ostracized, therefore, and put under -the ban as the chief source of corruption of our vernacular, as certain -of our purists, in their zeal without knowledge, tell us and attempt to -maintain. It is idle for them in their self-appointed rôle of guardian -of the pristine purity of the English tongue to endeavor to defend so -unsound and so indefensible a thesis. For legitimate slang, far from -being an unmitigated evil and a constant menace to the purity and -propriety of our noble tongue, is standard English in the making, is -idiom in the nascent state before it has attained to the dignity of -correctness of usage. To change the figure, legitimate slang is the -recruiting ground whence come the new and untried words which are to -take the place in the vernacular, of the archaic and obsolete words, -dropping out of the ranks. But it is aside from the main purpose of -this chapter to discuss the relation of slang to standard usage (cf. -“What is slang?”) and hence this only in passing. - -By an Americanism, as here used, is meant a word, phrase, or idiom of -the English tongue, in good standing, which has originated in America -or is in use only on this side of the Atlantic. It will be seen, -therefore, that all mere slang expressions, even though they be of -American origin, are barred from the present consideration. In his -dictionary of “Americanisms,” Bartlett gives a large collection, many -of which the above limitation, of course, excludes. - -Of reputed Americanisms, as one might surmise, there are several -classes to be distinguished, without any very clearly defined line -of demarcation separating them. One class includes a large number -of phrases which had their origin in England and were transported -thence to our shores by the first settlers who came from the mother -country and established themselves in Virginia and Massachusetts. In -the last analysis these locutions appear to be transplanted British -provincialisms, not a few of which came over in the _Mayflower_. Some -of our British critics who are not as familiar with the history of the -English language as they might be do not hesitate to deliver an offhand -opinion, pronouncing an apparent neologism an Americanism, when as a -matter of fact the expression shows a good English pedigree extending -back many generations. A more intimate acquaintance with the history of -our common speech would save them the embarrassment from such a glaring -blunder. But it is so easy to fall into the careless habit of branding -as an Americanism an unfamiliar idiom or a phrase that is rarely heard -in England. This convenient term has thus become in England a reproach, -inasmuch as a certain stigma, somehow, attaches to it in the British -mind. But for all that, like charity, it covers a multitude of sins, -sins of keen prejudice, no less than of crass ignorance. - -Many of the so-called Americanisms are really survivals of Elizabethan -English and boast a Shakespearean pedigree, although they are no longer -heard in the country of that consummate master of our speech.[13] -Somehow, they seem to have drifted out of the main current of British -English. Perhaps they have been caught up by an eddy and carried into -one of the provinces where they are still preserved, as they are in -America, fresh and vigorous. A moment’s reflection will show that -we Americans come rightly by our Elizabethan English. For surely -New England, Maryland and Virginia were settled by those who spoke -the tongue of Shakespeare, even though they did not all hold the -faith and morals of Milton. Many of these settlers--both Puritan and -Cavalier--were college-bred men, graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. -Therefore they inherited the best traditions of the English speech and -transmitted it uncorrupted to their children. Nor were their children -wilful traducers and corruptors of the King’s English, but contrariwise -they conserved it and safeguarded its purity quite as sedulously as the -inhabitants of the mother country. Thus the English speech was handed -down, undefiled, from one generation to another, in America. Hence some -words and phrases of good Elizabethan usage have been preserved in -America, which long ago became obsolete and dropped out of the living -speech in England, where the growth of the language was, of course, -not arrested by the rude shock incident to its being transplanted in a -foreign country. - -Let us now point out a few examples of reputed Americanisms, social -pariahs which have lost caste and no longer move in polite circles in -England. An interesting example is found in the word “fall” used in the -sense of autumn. Both these terms are in favor in America, although the -pedants, following the lead of British critics, proscribe the use of -“fall.” We are told it is not employed in standard English, and hence -must be censured as provincial. Yet “fall,” which enjoys a certain -poetic association with the fall of the leaf, can offer in its support -the high authority of Dryden, who employed it in his translation of -Juvenal’s satires: - - What crowds of patients the town doctor kills, - Or how last fall he raised the weekly bills. - -In his “Northern Farmer,” Tennyson used the offending word, but of -course under the cloak of a provincialism. Still Freeman did not deign -to employ it. Commenting on it, he remarks: “If fall as a season of the -year has gone out of use in Britain, it has gone out very lately. At -least I remember perfectly well the phrase of ‘spring and fall’ in my -childhood.” - -Another good illustration of a word still surviving in American -usage, but long ago discarded in England, is “sick” in the sense of -ill. British usage restricts the meaning to nausea, employing ill to -describe a man suffering with a disease of whatever sort. Yet “sick” -is supported by the very best literary authority. The term occurs -again and again in Elizabethan literature. Reference to Bartlett’s -concordance will convince even the most skeptical that the word -abounds in Shakespeare, and that, too, in passages where the correct -interpretation leaves no doubt that “ill” is meant. Suffice it to -cite only an example or two: In “Midsummer Night’s Dream” (act 1, -scene 1), Shakespeare makes Helena say, “Sickness is catching”; again -in “Cymbeline” (act 5, scene 4), we read, “Yet am I better than one -that’s sick of the gout”; and in “Romeo and Juliet” (act 5, scene -2), we read, “Here in this city visiting the sick.” Not only so. -“Sick,” in the American acceptation, has an unbroken line of the best -literary authority from Chaucer, “that well of English undefiled,” -down to Doctor Johnson, whose dictionary defines the word in reference -to a person afflicted with disease. American usage, furthermore, is -supported by the King James version, in which “ill” is nowhere found, -and also by the Anglican Church ritual. It is needless to multiply -citations. If Americans sin in the improper use of “sick,” it may be -urged in extenuation that they can at least plead a long array of -illustrious and unimpeachable authority and are in good company. - -The use of “well” as an interjection is mentioned by Bartlett in -his dictionary as one of “the most marked peculiarities of American -speech.” Moreover, he adds, “Englishmen have told me that they could -always detect an American by the use of this word.” If this is an -infallible hall-mark of American speech, then American English is -nearer the tongue of Shakespeare than British English of the present -day. For the word “well” in the sense of an interjection occurs again -and again in Shakespeare. In “Hamlet” (act 1, scene 1), Bernardo -asks, “Have you had a quiet guard?” Francisco replies, “Not a mouse -stirring.” Whereupon Bernardo adds, “Well, good-night.” Again in -“Midsummer Night’s Dream” (act 3, scene 1): - -_Bottom._ And then indeed let him name his name, and tell them plainly -he is Snug the joiner. - -_Quince._ Well, it shall be so. - -In Beaumont and Fletcher’s “Captain” (act 3, scene 3), we find an -excellent example in the line, “Well, I shall live to see your husbands -beat you.” No one, of course, would think of charging Tennyson with -using unidiomatic English. Yet, in “Locksley Hall,” you read: - - “Well--’tis well that I should bluster.” - -Surely it is superfluous to cite further examples from English authors -showing that American usage in the case of “well” as an interjection -is perfectly good English, even if the locution is censured by British -pedantry and never heard on British lips. - -The trite and hard-worked “guess,” as characteristic of American speech -as the much-abused “fancy” is of British speech, furnishes another -conspicuous example of a reputable word in Elizabethan English which -has become obsolete in England, but is still preserved on this side of -the Atlantic. There is no doubt that our constant employment of this -good old Saxon word to do service on every occasion and to express -every shade of thought from mild conjecture to positive assertion is -somewhat inelegant; and this circumstance has perhaps contributed to -bring the overtaxed phrase into disrepute with our kin across the sea. -Yet there is abundant warrant in Elizabethan usage for the familiar -notation we give “guess” in our every-day speech, although it is -generally confined to its strict meaning of conjecture in that period -of the language. We find it used in the familiar sense of “think” in -several passages in Shakespeare, notably in “I. Henry VI.” (act 2, -scene 1): - - Not altogether; better far, I guess, - That we do make our entrance several ways. - -Likewise, in “Measure for Measure” (act 4, scene 4): - -_Angelo._ And why meet him at the gates and redeliver our authorities -there? - -_Escalus._ I guess not. - -So, again, in the “Winter’s Tale” (act 4, scene 3): - -_Camillo._ Which, I do guess, you do not purpose to him. - -But this meaning of “guess” is common throughout the entire history -of English literature, for the word has always borne the sense of -think, cheek by jowl with its specific meaning of conjecture. It is so -employed by Chaucer and Gower in early times and in the last century -by Sheridan and Wordsworth, certainly good literary authority enough. -However, this meaning of the term appears to have died out in the -present-day British speech, and the word is there employed strictly in -the sense of conjecture, its lost sense being supplied by “fancy.” Now, -as between the Briton’s “fancy” and the American’s “guess,” there may -not be much choice. But certainly the employment of “guess” which our -British cousins claim to be a shibboleth of American nationality does -not indicate any misuse of our mother tongue, as they contend. - -Only one more case shall be adduced in illustration, to wit, our -word “baggage,” which the other half of the Anglo-Saxon race has -discarded for “luggage.” Here again, as elsewhere in the exercise of -our prerogative, we have demonstrated our independence of the mother -country in the matter of our speech and have chosen one term while the -English people have adopted another, to designate the same thing. Both -words have a good literary pedigree extending several centuries back. -Shakespearean usage seems about equally divided, perhaps, with the -odds in favor of “baggage.” The Shakespearean coinage “bag and baggage -and scrip and scrippage,” which falls from the lips of Touchstone in -“As You Like It,” and which enjoys the familiarity of a household -word, ought to have given “baggage” a wider currency, especially in -the author’s own country. But language, like the heathen Chinee, has -ways that are dark, if not tricks that are vain, and does not develop -according to logic or our _a priori_ conceptions. Between the Briticism -“luggage” and the Americanism “baggage” it appears, therefore, to be -a drawn battle. So the British have nothing to reproach us with on -this score, since convention has adopted “baggage” on one side of the -Atlantic and “luggage” on the other. - -So much for this interesting class of Americanisms which repose on -standard Elizabethan usage, but are social outcasts in the land of -their birth. There is another class of Americanisms which are not -bolstered up by a long literary pedigree, inasmuch as they originated -on American soil and were not imported from the Old World. As compared -with the class just considered, these latter are mere _parvenus_, -without any illustrious ancestral history to commend them. This class -of Americanisms is composed of phrases which have found their way into -our speech from various foreign sources. They have been introduced -into our tongue from our contact with diverse peoples from remote -parts of the globe. They constitute a small residuum of terms and -phrases, the presence of which in our vocabulary attests the fact of -our relations with different nations of the earth. For instance, in -the early history of our country, we had to do with the Indians, and -so borrowed from them certain terms especially pertaining to natural -objects. We also had relations with the French, and consequently -borrowed from them sundry phrases employed in official parlance, such -as “bureau of information,” for which British usage prefers “office”; -“exposition” for the British “exhibition,” and the like. Let these few -examples represent the class. It is apparent here that we have made a -slight departure from British usage. But it does not follow that our -speech, for this reason, is less pure or less idiomatic. Both American -usage and British usage show that the respective nations have decided -to employ Romance importations in official language, but they have -adopted different terms for the same object. This proves, in the first -place, the independence of the two great English-speaking nations even -in the matter of language, and, in the second place, the wide-reaching -influence of French as the recognized official and diplomatic language -during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. - -In addition to these two distinct classes of Americanisms there is a -third class composed of phrases and expressions which have not yet -attained to the dignity of universal currency throughout the entire -country. These are rather provincialisms which are peculiar to certain -localities. This class, therefore, does not command the importance -which the first two classes already considered do. In a heterogeneous -population like ours, made up of people from every nationality under -heaven, it is quite natural that in certain localities there should -exist some eccentricities of speech, some departures from the received -standard--in a word, some provincialisms. It need hardly be recalled -that parts of our vast country were settled by other nations than the -English, as, for instance, New York by the Dutch and Louisiana by the -French, to mention two specific cases bearing on the point in question. -The people of these respective states, when they were incorporated into -the union, of course, did not immediately forsake their native modes -of speech and inherited vocabulary for pure, unadulterated Saxon. When -the vast southwest territory was made a part of the United States, the -people in that quarter of the land spoke a lingo which had a decided -foreign complexion. What more natural, then, than that in the speech of -that portion of our land there should exist traces of this old foreign -element? Assuredly it would have been the height of artificiality and -an unprecedented proceeding for the French element of New Orleans, when -they became citizens of the United States, to have renounced their -native French names for such natural objects as “bayou,” “levee” and -the like, in order to adopt pure Saxon terms. Likewise, it was not to -be expected that the Spanish settlers in the western section of our -country, specifically California, should abandon such native terms as -“cañon” and “ranch” and so on, for the corresponding names of genuine -English origin. Thus it happens that there is a pronounced foreign -flavor, or at least a slight tang, in the eccentricities of speech -heard in certain localities of the United States. But these are mere -provincialisms and do not impair the quality of our standard speech, -which is English to the very core. - -However, it was inevitable that the English language in America should -have received an influx of foreign words on American soil. But our -speech possesses a marvelous capacity for assimilating non-Saxon -elements from whatever source. Hence the various foreign elements, -such as Indian, Dutch, French and Spanish, to mention only the chief -importations, have all been absorbed without any appreciable alteration -in the constitution of our English speech, and only traces here and -there are seen of non-Saxon elements surviving in a word or an idiom as -an enduring monument to the influence of other tongues upon our own on -American soil. Some of these foreign loans, it is true, are confined -to certain localities, and consequently are to be viewed in the light -of solecisms, or at best provincialisms. They circulate freely in a -limited area, but are not recognized as legal tender throughout the -length and breadth of the country. Such expressions are confined -chiefly to the western portion of the United States and very rarely -find their way east. It is questionable whether they are entitled to -be termed Americanisms except in the most liberal interpretation of -that phase, because they are not everywhere current and are not readily -intelligible, not “understanded of the people.” - -It seems appropriate at this juncture to say a word concerning dialects -in America. The assertion is sometimes made that there are no dialects -in America, that the railroad and printing press, the two potent and -indispensable agencies in our modern civilization, have leveled out all -eccentricities and peculiarities of speech and reduced our language to -a uniform standard throughout our entire country. This statement is, in -the main, true. Yet it requires only a little reflection to see that -the assertion is not absolutely accurate and in accord with the facts. -Certainly a brief residence in the several principal sections of the -United States would bring convincing refutation. There is the western -dialect, as implied in the comments in the preceding paragraph. There -is also the Yankee dialect of New England, the salient features of -which Lowell described very fully in his famous “Biglow Papers.” There -is no less truly the southern dialect with its definite peculiarities -of idiom and utterance. These dialects are quite sharply defined by -their respective characteristics of colloquial speech. Each dialect -has its own phrases and locutions familiar enough within its own -geographical divisions, but not readily understood, perhaps unknown, -elsewhere. For instance, the native southerner “reckons” and “don’t -guess,” whereas the Yankee “to the manner born” does not “reckon,” but -“guesses” _à tort et à travers_. As for the western dialect, it is said -that three elements enter into its constitution, _viz._, the mining, -the gambling and the cowboy element, a rich vein of billingsgate -running through each. An effort has been made by our writers of fiction -to register and record the salient features of these respective -dialects incidentally in their stories, but the shades and gradations -of speech are not easy to reflect and preserve on the printed page with -the corresponding local color. Hence the work has been but partially -done, and nowhere with complete success. - -We Americans are far less trammeled by dialectal inconveniences and -perplexities, however, than are the English people. For in Great -Britain there is much less uniformity of speech than with us, and the -difference between the language of a Scotchman and that of a Devonshire -man is almost infinitely greater than the difference between any two -American dialects. But the dissimilarity of the British dialects is -historic and dates back from time immemorial. The story of Caxton, the -first English printer, is well known, how the good merchant from a -southern shire, when he inquired for eggs of a good wife in a northern -shire, could not make himself understood, his southern dialect being -mistaken for French. To be sure, the dialectal differences are not so -great to-day as they were in those remote times, largely as the result -of the printing-press Caxton set up in Westminster. But even yet the -differences between the dialects of the extreme parts of the British -Isles is so pronounced as to be a barrier to complete interchange of -thought. - -It appears from the foregoing that the indictment of corrupting the -English language which certain British critics have brought in against -the American people is not a true bill, since no count has been -established. Our British critics seem loath to acknowledge any American -rights in our common language. Americans have as much right to -enrich the English vocabulary with useful words as the English people -themselves. We also have as just a claim as they to revive and preserve -an obsolescent phrase or idiom. Because a given English word is no -longer in use and esteem in England, but is recognized as standard -usage in the United States, it does not follow that it is not good -English. The number of those using the English language in America far -exceeds the population of England, and the English speech is just as -vigorous and virile in America as it is in the parent country. Indeed, -it has given indubitable proof of its vitality and vigor on American -lips by adapting itself to the infinite variety of new conditions in -this new country and by the added flexibility, strength and richness -as exhibited in its augmented vocabulary. English now is the language -of the American people as well as of the English people. It is, -therefore, no longer proper or scientific to speak of the queen’s or -of the king’s English. Such a phrase is really an anachronism in the -twentieth century, when the English-speaking subjects of King Edward -are numerically inferior to those not owing allegiance to Britain’s -sovereign, who speak the same tongue. Moreover, it is manifestly not in -keeping with the eternal fitness of things, as well as unscientific, -for our British kith and kin to stigmatize an idiom or a phrase in good -American usage as a provincialism simply because it is not current in -Great Britain. The Britons have no more right to attempt to prescribe -and limit the growth of the English tongue than we have. Nor do -they enjoy an exclusive prerogative of determining whether a given -expression, be it a new coinage or a survival from a former period, -shall live and flourish or decline and perish in the English tongue. -No sovereign, no nation can determine this, either by decree or by -statute. The most that the British can say in derogation of an alleged -Americanism is that it is current only in America and is not authorized -by British usage. But this does not make it un-English, if it bears the -American sign manual. - -It is perfectly absurd for the British critics to condemn Americanisms -offhand and to attempt to read them out of the language, simply because -they are not in accord with British usage. In so doing they give proof -of their insularity and fail to exhibit a spirit of liberality and -sweet reasonableness. Indeed, they seem disposed, at all events, to -take themselves too seriously as guardians of the English language. It -is well enough for a critic to throw his influence on the side of the -preservation of the purity and propriety of speech. But it is sheer -folly to allow one’s pedantry to go to such a length as Malherbe, that -“tyrant of words and syllables,” who on his death-bed angrily rebuked -his nurse for the solecisms of her language, exclaiming in extenuation -of his act, “Sir, I will defend to my very last gasp the purity of the -French language.” It is related of him that he was so fatal a precisian -in the choice of words that he spent three years in composing an ode on -the death of a friend’s wife, and when at last the ode was completed, -his friend had married again, and the purist had only his labor for -his pains. Now your true British pedant seems to think it his bounden -duty to reject summarily every word or expression which does not bear -the pure English hall-mark, and that as for Americanisms they are -an abomination which must inevitably work the speedy corruption and -ultimate decadence of the noble English tongue. Such an one, whether -from his precisianism or his prejudice, fails utterly to recognize in -Americanisms conclusive evidence of the inherent potency, vigor and -vitality of the English language on American lips. - - -FOOTNOTES: - -[12] See A Question of Preference in English Spelling. - -[13] See Vulgarisms With A Pedigree. - - - - -WHAT IS SLANG? - - -To the purist slang is an unmitigated evil which makes for the gradual -corruption and decadence of our vernacular. The pedant who is a -martinet regards all slang with absolute contempt and abhors its use, -because he believes slang spells deterioration for our noble tongue. -Such an one takes his self-appointed guardianship of the language very -seriously and deems it his bounden duty as a curator of our English -speech, not only himself to spurn the use of slang, but also to inveigh -against all those who employ it habitually or occasionally. The baneful -influence of slang, he tells us, is sweeping like a mighty tidal wave -over the English language, debasing it and corrupting its very sources. - -Nor is the precisionist alone in entertaining this alarming view. For -many others who are not sticklers for strict propriety and correctness -of speech share, to some extent, the same opinion, although they feel -no special concern as to the final outcome. However, it is reassuring -to reflect that the best-informed among us and those whose thorough -knowledge entitles them to speak with authority do not take so -gloomy and pessimistic a view of the future of the English language. -They inform us that the fears of the pedants and pedagogues--the -half-educated--are never destined to be realized. - -“Strictly speaking,” says Professor Lounsbury, than whom there is -no higher authority in America on the history of English, “there is -no such thing as a language becoming corrupt. It is an instrument -which will be just what those who use it choose to make it. The words -that constitute it have no real significance of their own. It is -the meaning men put into them that gives them all the efficacy they -possess. Language does nothing more than reflect the character and the -characteristics of those who speak it. It mirrors their thoughts and -feelings, their passions and prejudices, their hopes and aspirations, -their aims, whether high or low. In the mouth of the bombastic it -will be inflated; in the mouth of the illiterate it will be full of -vulgarisms; in the mouth of the precise it will be formal and pedantic. -The history of language is the history of corruptions--using that -term in the sense in which it is constantly employed by those who are -stigmatizing by it the new words and phrases and constructions to which -they take exception. Every one of us is to-day employing expressions -which either outrage the rules of strict grammar, or disregard the -principles of analogy, or belong by their origin to what we now deem -the worst sort of vulgarisms. These so-called corruptions are found -everywhere in the vocabulary, and in nearly all the parts of speech.” - -Yet the feeling of the pedants and purists reflects the traditional -attitude of professional men of letters in respect to the so-called -corruptions that have been creeping into English during the last few -centuries. It may be worth while to give some of the utterances of -our representative English authors on this subject, showing how great -solicitude they felt for the purity of our language in consequence of -the increasing slang introduced into English. But before doing this, -let us make a brief digression, in order to discuss what is meant by -slang, which appears to be the source of the alleged corruptions of our -speech. - -In the first place one must differentiate slang from cant. It is -evident, on a careful analysis, that much of the reputed slang now -current is really cant, not slang, in the proper sense of the term. -Both cant and slang are closely allied and have a kindred origin. This -is the reason for the confusion of the two in the popular mind. - -Cant is the language of a certain class or sect of people. It is the -phraseology, the dialect, so to say, of a certain craft or profession -and is not readily understood save by the members of the craft -concerned. It may be perfectly correct according to the rules of -grammar, but it is not perfectly intelligible and is not understood -by the people. It is an esoteric language which only the initiated -fully comprehend and are familiar with. For example, the jargon of -thieves is called cant, as is also the jargon of professional gamblers. -Slang, on the other hand, belongs to no particular class. It is a -collection of words and phrases, borrowed from whatever source, which -everybody is acquainted with and readily understands. It is not uncouth -gibberish intelligible only to a few. It is composed of colloquialisms -everywhere current, but homely and not refined enough to be admitted -into polite speech. Such expressions may be allowed a place in certain -departments of literature, as familiar and humorous writing, but they -are objectionable in grave and serious composition and speech. - -Now, slang is reputed to have had its origin in cant, specifically -“thieves’ Latin,” as the cant of this vagabond class is called. Indeed, -this appears to have been the only meaning of slang till probably the -second quarter of the last century. In “Red Gauntlet,” published in -1824, Scott refers to certain cant words and “thieves’ Latin called -slang”; and the great romancer seems to have been fully aware that -he was using a rather unknown term which required a gloss. Sometime -during the middle of the last century, so Professor Brander Matthews -informs us, slang lost this narrow limitation and came to signify a -word or phrase used with a meaning not recognized in polite letters, -either because it had just been invented or because it had passed out -of memory. If it is true that slang had its beginning in the _argot_ -of thieves, it soon lost all association with its vulgar source, and -polite slang to-day bears hardly a remote suggestion of the lingo of -this disreputable class. In so short a period--but little more than -a half century--has the word, as well as the thing it signifies, -separated itself from its unsavory early association and worked its way -up into good society. - -Of slang, however, there are several kinds. There is a slang attached -to certain different professions and classes of society, such as -college slang, political slang and racing slang. But it must be borne -in mind that this differentiation has reference to the origin of the -slang in the cant of these respective professions. It is of the nature -of slang to circulate more or less freely among all classes of society. -Yet there are several kinds of slang corresponding to the several -classes of society, such as vulgar and polite, to mention only two -general classes. Now, it is true of all slang, as a rule, that it is -the result of an effort to express an idea in a more vigorous, piquant -and terse manner than standard usage ordinarily admits. In proof of -this it will suffice to cite _awfully_ for _very_, employed by every -school-girl as “awfully cute”; _peach_ or _daisy_ for something or -some one especially attractive or admirable, as “she’s a peach”; _a -walk-over_ for any easy victory, _a dead cinch_ for a surety, and -the like. But it is not necessary to multiply examples of a mode of -expression which is perfectly familiar to all. Every man’s vocabulary -contains slang terms and phrases, some more than others. Often the -slang consists of words in good social standing which are arbitrarily -misapplied. For although much current slang is of vulgar origin and -bears upon its face the bend sinister of its vulgarity, still some of -it is of good birth and is held in repute by writers and speakers even -who are punctilious as to their English. Some slang expressions are -of the nature of metaphors, and are highly figurative. Such are _to -kick the bucket_, _to pass in your checks_, _to hold up_, _to pull the -wool over your eyes_, _to talk through your hat_, _to fire out_, _to -go back on_, _to make yourself solid with_, _to have a jag on_, _to -be loaded_, _to freeze on to_, _to freeze out_, _to bark up the wrong -tree_, _don’t monkey with the buzz-saw_, and _in the soup_. But of the -different kinds of slang and of its vivid and picturesque character -more anon. - -Let us now, after this digression as to what constitutes slang, return -to the former question of the historical aspect of slang, which -was engaging our consideration. Though the name is modern, slang -itself is, in reality, of venerable age, and was recognized in the -plebeian speech of Petronius, the Beau Brummel of Nero’s time, whose -“Trimalchio’s Dinner” is replete with the choicest slang of the Roman -“smart set.” The humorous pages of François Rabelais, also, have a -copious sprinkling of slang expressions and invite comparison with the -productions of some of our own American humorists, who depend not a -little upon the vigorous western slang to enhance the effectiveness of -their humor. But it is more to the point to cite historical instances -among our English authors, especially those who set themselves the -burdensome, yet thankless, task of striving to preserve the primitive -purity of our speech. - -The greatest representative of this number in English literature, -excepting Addison, is Swift, the famous dean of St. Patrick’s. He was -impelled by a desire amounting almost to a passion, it is said, to hand -down the English language to his successors with its vaunted purity and -beauty absolutely unimpaired. In an essay in _The Tattler_ of September -28, 1710, he gives vehement utterance to his feelings on the shocking -carelessness and woeful lack of taste in the use of the vernacular -exhibited by his contemporaries. He affirms that the conscienceless, -unrefined writers of his day were utterly indifferent as to the effect -of their deplorable practice upon the future of the English tongue -and brought forward, in proof of his contention, numerous examples of -solecisms which he alleged were constantly employed, to the corruption -and deterioration of the language. - -Swift made a threefold division of the barbarous neologisms which -were introduced in his day. It is interesting to observe his several -classes of these locutions that were contrary to all rules of -propriety. The first class was made up of abbreviations in which only -the first syllable or part of the word had to do duty for the entire -word, as _phiz_ for _physiognomy_, _hyp_ for _hypochondria_, _mob_ -for _mobile vulgus_, _poz_ for _positive_, _rep_ for _reputation_, -_incog_ for _incognito_ and _plenipo_ for _plenipotentiary_. The second -class included polysyllables, such as _speculations_, _battalions_, -_ambassadors_, _palisadoes_, _operations_, _communications_, -_preliminaries_, _circumvallations_ and other ungraceful, mouth-filling -words, which Swift alleged were introduced into the language as a -result of the war of the Spanish succession then in progress. His -third class embraced those terms which were, to quote his own words, -“invented by certain pretty fellows, such as _banter_, _bamboozle_, -_country put_ and _kidney_.” “I have done my utmost,” he pathetically -remarks, “for some years past to stop the progress of _mob_ and -_banter_, but have been plainly borne down by numbers and betrayed by -those who promised to assist me.” - -Two years later Swift addressed a public letter to the Earl of Oxford, -the Lord High Treasurer, deprecating the approaching decadence of the -English tongue and earnestly urging some sort of concerted action for -correcting and improving the vernacular. The language, the letter -recited, was very imperfect and daily deteriorating. The period of its -greatest purity, Swift went on to say, was that from the beginning -of Queen Elizabeth’s reign to the breaking out of the civil war of -1642. His perturbed mind was filled with mingled feelings of grief and -indignation as he pointed out in this letter the growing corruptions -then so apparent even in the writings of the best authors, and more -especially as he was compelled to admit that not only the fanatics of -the commonwealth, but also the court itself, had contributed to bring -about the sad condition of the language. - -It is not worth while to speak in detail of Swift’s fanciful and -quixotic scheme for purging the language and keeping it pure. But it is -interesting to observe, in passing, that his urgent appeal to the prime -minister to become the guardian and curator of the English tongue was -utterly fruitless and, what is more, that his direful predictions as to -the speedy decay of English have never been verified. Furthermore, some -of those very neologisms which Swift criticized so unrelentingly are -now recognized in polite speech and bear the stamp of approval as the -_jus et norma loquendi_. Of his second class of barbarisms well-nigh -all are to-day accepted as standard English and are without a trace of -slang. With his first and third classes, however, fate has not dealt -so kindly, for these words are still under condemnation, save _mob_, -which has forced its way to recognition in good usage as a necessary -term. - -Toward the end of the eighteenth century appeared another champion of -the preservation of the purity and propriety of the English speech. -This was James Beattie, a learned Scotchman. For some reason or other, -the Scotch seemed extremely solicitous about the English language -during the eighteenth century--a solicitude that was not appreciated by -the British lexicographers and least of all by Dr. Johnson. In a letter -written in 1790, Beattie took occasion to speak of the “new-fangled -phrases and barbarous idioms that are now so much affected by those who -form their style from political pamphlets and those pretended speeches -in Parliament that appear in the newspapers.” “Should this jargon -continue to gain ground among us,” he assures his correspondent, in -a doleful mood, “English literature will go to ruin. During the last -twenty years, especially since the breaking out of the American war, it -has made alarming progress.... If I live to execute what I purpose on -the writings and genius of Addison, I shall at least enter my protest -against the practise; and by exhibiting a copious specimen of the new -phraseology, endeavor to make my reader set his heart against it.” - -In order to emphasize the damage resulting to the language from the -neologisms which were creeping in, Beattie conceived the clever plan of -privately printing a series of “Dialogues of the Dead,” which purported -to be the production of his son deceased a few years before. The -most interesting of these “Dialogues” is the report of an imaginary -conversation between Dean Swift, a bookseller and Mercury, in which -the worthy dean expresses himself as greatly shocked and disgusted -at the outlandish English used by the bookseller; and he calls on -Mercury to translate the _patois_ into good English. In response to -Swift’s earnest request, Mercury says among other things: “Instead -of _life_, _new_, _wish for_, _take_, _plunge_, etc., you must say -_existence_, _novel_, _desiderate_, _capture_, _ingurgitate_, etc., -as--a fever put an end to his existence.... Instead of a _new_ fashion, -you will do well to say a _novel_ fashion.... You must on no account -speak of _taking_ the enemy’s ships, towns, guns or baggage: it must -be _capturing_.” Other words which were censured as improper by this -phantom critic were _unfriendly_ and _hostile_ for which _inimical_ was -recommended; _sort_ and _kind_, in place of each of which _description_ -was to be used. Some of the locutions then in vogue which especially -offended good taste, according to Beattie, were _to make up one’s -mind_, _to scout the idea_, _to go to prove_, _line of conduct_, _in -contemplation_, and _for the future_. Furthermore, the frequent use -of _feel_, which threatened to supplant the verb _to be_ in such an -idiom as “I am sick” and drive it from its rightful domain, aroused the -learned Scotch purist’s apprehension as to the final outcome, as did -also the growing tendency to employ _truism_ for _truth_, _committal_ -for _commitment_, _pugilist_ for _boxer_, _approval_ for _approbation_ -and _agriculturist_ for _husbandman_. - -No doubt Beattie believed with Swift that the influx of such -pedantic Latinisms as _desiderate_ and _ingurgitate_ and the like -would result in impairing the purity of our speech and perhaps hasten -its declension. Nor did he look with favor on the growing fashion -to use monosyllables, though of pure Saxon origin, so much affected -by some writers during that period. Both of these tendencies were -of temporary vogue; yet they served to arouse the fears of the -ultra-conservatives as to the fate of the English language. One might -suppose that, dreading the then threatening invasion of Latin terms -as they clearly did, they would have hailed with delight the revival -of Saxon monosyllables as a favorable offset. But even this did not -allay their fears and was rather interpreted as a harmful symptom. -Time, however, has demonstrated fully that the fears of those purists -were unwarranted and that their dire predictions as to the future -of English were founded on a very imperfect knowledge of linguistic -development. A cursory examination of Beattie’s lists reveals the fact -that of the verbal innovations and offending phrases which he put under -the ban, the genius of the language has adopted not a few, and that, -too, without impairing in the least the purity of the English tongue -or its capacity for expressing the finest shades of thought. So far -from losing, the language has gained in its capacity for expressing -nice distinctions of thought and feeling, as a result of its marvelous -absorptive power. - -It has thus been shown that in the eighteenth century there were not -wanting those--purists or what not--who entertained and expressed -no little concern as to the ultimate effect upon our speech of -the multitude of neologisms and asserted improprieties that were -introduced. Did space permit, utterances of a similar character by -nineteenth-century writers, from Walter Savage Landon down to critics -of far less renown, might be brought forward as evidence to show that -the watch-dogs of our speech were as numerous and as alert as ever. Nor -is their tribe yet extinct. Ever and anon, even in the last few years, -some prophet of evil is heard to raise his voice in vigorous protest -against the increasing use of slang as foreboding the decadence of our -vernacular. But the warning is not heeded; and the English language, -like the real living thing that it is, goes on developing according to -the subtle principles of speech development. - -The laws governing speech development are very imperfectly known. -Consequently none can foretell how a given tongue may develop. The -language appears to be independent of one’s individual habit of -speech; yet it is the sum total of the individual habits of speech -that constitutes the language. No man makes a language; no man can -make it. Not even the greatest monarch on earth can, by decree or -fiat, predetermine the course of development of the language of his -subjects. Language is an involuntary product and does not result from -any determined concert of action. Yet it is modified and changed by -various influences. As long as it is alive and spoken, it is constantly -changing and will not remain “fixed” according to the whimsical desire -of the purist. When it ceases to be used upon the lips of the people as -a medium of communication of their thoughts and feelings, then it will -cease to change and grow and will become “fixed.” But when a language -is no longer spoken, it is characterized as dead. It is in this sense -that we call Latin and Greek dead languages, although they survive in -modern Italian and modern Greek, respectively. - -It follows, therefore, that it is the height of folly for any one, -no matter how highly esteemed as an author, to attempt the rôle of -reformer of the speech. Such an one is destined to have only his labor -for his pains. He can not directly purge the language of its neologisms -and improprieties of usage. These violations of standard usage which -offend good taste, strange as it may seem, furnish indubitable evidence -of the vitality of the speech; for from these contraband expressions -come the new terms and idioms which are to take the place of the -obsolete words which drop out of the vocabulary. - -Viewed in this light, slang assumes a different aspect, and it -becomes evident that it performs a certain necessary function in the -development of language. It is no longer proper, therefore, to refer to -slang with supreme contempt and to condemn it offhand as an unmitigated -evil which ought to be forthwith extirpated from the language. For, as -an eminent authority has observed, slang is the recruiting ground of -language and is, in reality, idiom in the making. It has been pointed -out how some of the slang expressions of the eighteenth century which -fell under the censure of Swift and Beattie are now found upon the -pages of our best authors and are heard upon the lips of our most -polished and elegant speakers. Since this is true, no verbal critic can -at the present time affirm of a polite slang expression now in vogue -that it is destined never to work its way up into good usage, or of a -foreign locution that it will never be domiciled in our speech. Nor can -he determine, in the case of a new coinage which is a candidate for -adoption into the literary language, just when it is taken over from -that doubtful borderland between slang and standard usage. - -Seeing, then, that slang really has a function to perform in the growth -of speech and, therefore, that it is worthy of serious consideration, -let us examine some of our modern English slang and study for a short -while its origin and history. - -Professor Brander Matthews, in an admirable paper on the subject, -divides slang into four classes, and we can hardly do better than to -follow his general classification. The first class embraces those -vulgar cant expressions which are the survivals of thieves’ Latin or -St. Giles’ Greek, and those uncouth, inelegant terms which constitute -the vernacular of the lower orders of society. This is the kind of -slang heard in the police courts, the kind the newspaper reporter -too frequently resorts to, in order to give spice to his account. It -has been introduced into literature by some of our recent novelists, -notably Dickens. The second class of slang is not quite so coarse, -and includes those ephemeral phrases and catchwords which have a -fleeting popularity and which, because they meet no real need, are soon -forgotten utterly. They live but a day and pass away, leaving behind -no trace of their existence. Of this class are campaign slogans and -such inane expressions as _where did you get that hat?_ _chestnut_, -_rot_, _I should smile_ and many others equally stupid. It is these two -classes of slang that have brought the term into disrepute and merited -contempt. For this sort of slang is very offensive to delicate ears and -justly deserves the speedy oblivion which overtakes it. - -The other two classes of slang, on the contrary, are of a finer -type and have a reason for their being, something to commend them -to popular favor. It may well be that from this type new idioms and -phrases are recruited into our literary language. However, a certain -stigma attaches to this better variety of slang, also, in the judgment -of many, simply because it is slang. Yet it is heard on the lips of -educated and cultured speakers, much to the disgust of those who -are fastidious as to the propriety of usage. When it is employed in -the written speech, the more careful writers brand it with inverted -commas, the barbarian earmarks which attest its social inferiority. -Occasionally a bold writer like Mr. Howells breaks down these barriers -which convention has set up and gives a polite slang expression the -stamp of his approval and authority. In this way these social outcasts, -the pariahs of our literary speech, are now and then elevated to the -dignity and rank of good society, and finally establish themselves in -standard English. - -Of these two classes of slang serving some useful end as feeders to the -vocabulary and idiom of our language by which its wasting energy is to -be repaired, the first embraces those archaic phrases and terms which -are revived after long disuse and again brought into service. Restored -after several generations of neglect, they now appear to be entirely -new coinages and are only received as other probationers. The second -class is composed of absolutely new words and expressions, frequently -the product of a happy invention and, generally, racy and forceful. As -instances of the first class may be mentioned _to fire_, in the sense -to expel forcibly or dismiss, _bloody_ in the sense of very, _deck_ in -the sense _pack_ of cards and similar historic Elizabethan revivals. -Such locutions have a good literary pedigree, now and then boasting the -authority of Shakespearean usage. But this is not always apparent and -such long-obsolete phrases are, therefore, accounted mere _parvenus_. -For example, in King Henry VI. we read: - - Whiles he thought to steal the single ten, - The king was slily fingered from the deck.--3 Pr.,v.1. - -and again in Shakespeare’s 144th sonnet: - - Till my good angel fire my bad one out. - -The vulgar _bloody_, more common in England than in America, is an -inheritance from the classic age of Dryden, who even uses the coarse -phrase “bloody drunk” in his Prologue to “Southerne’s Disappointment.” -Swift furnishes a slight variation from this in “bloody sick,” -occurring in his “Poisoning of Curll.” The more fruitful province of -polite slang is the second class, which is made up of the clever -productions of the present age. It is from the best of these coinages, -above all, that the worn-out energies of our vocabulary and idiom are -repaired. These raw recruits of slang are severely disciplined and -tested by hard preliminary service. If in this test an individual slang -expression proves useful and is seen to fill an actual need, it is -admitted eventually into the fellowship of standard English. But if, on -the other hand, its utility is not established, it is relegated to the -limbo of useless inventions where oblivion soon engulfs it. - -Let us now review a few specimens of the best type of our modern -slang. But perhaps it is safer simply to mention the alleged slang -and not undertake to decide which of these expressions are slang and -which standard English. For it is no easy matter to trace the line -of cleavage between the legitimate technicality of a given craft or -profession and polite slang. For instance, are _corner_, _bull_, -_bear_ and _slump_, so familiar in financial parlance, mere technical -phraseology or slang? How is one to classify such political terms -as _mugwump_, _buncombe_, _gerrymander_, _scalawag_, _henchman_, -_log-rolling_, _pulling the wires_, _machine_, _slate_ and _to take the -stump_? If these are mere technical terms, surely _boycott_, _cab_, -_humbug_, _boom_ and _blizzard_ have passed beyond the narrow bounds of -technicality and are verging on that dubious borderland between slang -and standard English. Furthermore, are _swell_, _fad_, _crank_, _spook_ -and _stogy_ to be considered slang or good English? Each of these terms -is supported by the authority of some of our best writers. _Swell_, to -cite only one example, is bolstered up by the authority of Thackeray, -who in his “Adventures of Philip” writes: “They narrate to him the -advent and departure of the lady in the swell carriage, the mother of -the young swell with the flower in his buttonhole.” Again, how is one -to regard _fake_, _splurge_, _sand_, _swagger_, _blooming_ (idiot), _to -go it blind_, _to catch on_, and that vast host of similar racy and -vivid phrases which, if slang, still do duty for classic English in -common parlance? - -A glance at some of our slang idioms shows that they are borrowed -from the cant of various crafts and callings. Some are borrowed from -the technical vocabulary of the stage, some are taken over from the -phraseology of sporting life, while some bear the stamp of various -other vocations. Take as an illustration _fake_, or, better still, -_greenhorn_, which has forced its way to recognition in standard -English. At first _greenhorn_ was applied figuratively to a cow or -deer or other horned animal when its horns are immature. In the -“Towneley Mysteries” it is applied to an ox, for example. Later it was -extended to signify an inexperienced person, or one who, from lack of -acquaintance with the ways of the world, is easily imposed upon. The -former application where the term was used in allusion to an immature -horned animal is a legitimate metaphor. The latter use when applied -to an inexperienced person was doubtless recognized as an extension -of the metaphor and as slang. But the word filled a need in the -vocabulary and was at length admitted into the guild of good usage. -Another illustration is furnished by _mascot_, a recent importation -from the French. This word originated in gambler’s cant and signified -a talisman, a fetish, something designed to bestow good luck upon its -possessor. The term, despite its unsavory association, somehow has -commended itself to popular favor and now seems not to offend the -most refined taste. _Slump_, though not so hackneyed, may serve as an -example in point also. As a provincialism this word denotes soft swampy -ground, or melting snow and slush. Later by transferred meaning it came -to characterize in the financial world the melting away of prices, as -a slump in the market--a vivid picture which is more interesting as a -linguistic phenomenon than as an actual fact. - -The history of slang teaches that words, like people, may be divided -into two general classes, high and low, or refined and uncouth. “In -language as in life,” as Professor Dowden puts it, “there is, so to -speak, an aristocracy and a commonalty, words with a heritage of -dignity, words which have been ennobled, and a rabble of words which -are excluded from positions of honor and trust.” Now, some writers -select only the choice and noble words to convey their ideas, leaving -the coarse and vulgar words, terms without a pedigree, as it were, in -the bottom of the inkhorn, for those who desire them. Other writers -again have less cultured tastes and do not scruple to employ now and -then plebeian words, to set forth their thoughts and feelings. - -One might suppose on first blush that the dictionary ought to be a -safe guide in the choice of words. A moment’s reflection, however, -is sufficient to convince one that the dictionary can not be relied -upon always for this desired knowledge. It is the lexicographer’s -office to make a complete register of the vocabulary of the language; -and so, to make his work exhaustive, he frequently records many slang -words in his dictionary. Yet the practise of our dictionary-makers, -it must be admitted, varies widely in this respect, some being far -more exclusive than others. Our former lexicographers, as for instance -Doctor Johnson, exercised a stricter censorship than is the custom -at present. But it is not correct always to infer, in the case of an -unrecorded word of questionable usage, that the author excluded it of -set purpose. It may possibly be omitted from oversight. It seems to be -the custom of our lexicographers now to make as complete a record as -possible of all polite slang, but to brand it “slang.” This plan is, of -course, altogether distasteful to the pedants and pedagogues who make -a fruitless effort to curb and check the vocabulary of a language by -rejecting all words of questionable usage. Whatever is not in harmony -with established usage, whatever is not authorized by standard speech, -the pedants and half-educated utterly reject. Now, heretofore our -dictionary-makers have not been entirely above and beyond this narrow -and circumscribed view. It was this fact that prompted Lowell, in the -preface to his famous “Biglow Papers,” to express himself in these -vigorous words: “There is death in the dictionary; and where language -is too strictly limited by convention, the ground for expression to -grow in is limited also, and we get a _potted_ literature--Chinese -dwarfs instead of healthy trees.” - -The truth is, it does not fall legitimately within the province of the -lexicographer to settle the question whether a polite slang term of -recognized fitness and utility should be deemed good English or not. No -man, however competent a scholar he may be, has the right to determine -the growth and development of our language. Yet such a practise means -this in the last analysis. There are not a few words and idioms in -English that have neither logic nor reason to commend them, but are the -product of analogy, as _it_, _its_ and _you_, instead of the strictly -correct _hit_, _his_ and _ye_, to use a familiar example; and yet -these analogical formations, which at first were mere slang, long ago -drove our proper pronouns from the field. This change took place in -the last two or three centuries, and that, too, in the very face of -the vaunted authority of Shakespeare and the King James Version. No -doubt the pedants and purists opposed this change as utterly illogical -and contrary to the natural order of development and growth of our -English speech; but they were gradually borne down. It is the vast body -of those who use the language, the people, not the lexicographers and -scholars solely or chiefly, who are the final arbiters in a matter of -this kind. It is the law of speech as registered in the usage of those -who employ the language that decides ultimately whether a given phrase -shall survive or perish; and this is done so unconsciously withal that -the people are not aware that they are sealing the destiny of some -particular vocable. This silent, indefinable, resistless force we call -the genius of the language. - -It is hoped that the spirit of this paper will not be misunderstood. -The article, let it be distinctly and emphatically stated, is not -intended as a brief for slang--far from it. It is written simply to -call attention anew to the fact that slang is not to be absolutely -condemned as the main source of corruption of our speech, as some -assert, but that, contrariwise, it is an important factor in the growth -of our vernacular and serves--at least, the best of it--a useful -purpose in repairing the resulting waste which necessarily occurs in -English as in every spoken language. - - - - -STANDARD ENGLISH--HOW IT AROSE AND HOW IT IS MAINTAINED. - - -Much is said and written nowadays as to the prevalence of slang and bad -English. It is a matter of common regret both in academic circles and -elsewhere that our English tongue is not now spoken and written with -its traditional purity and propriety. As to the truth of this complaint -there is probably some ground for doubt, but it is not proposed here -to discuss this question. The mere fact of the existence of slang and -bad English implies that there is a norm, a standard of propriety of -English speech, to which polite usage ever aims to conform. It is this -standard that ratifies a given idiom or locution and stamps it with -the hall-mark of propriety, thus establishing its usage as approved. -Any signal departure from this standard is at once branded a solecism -and consequently recognized as a provincialism, or slang. It is here -proposed to inquire what constitutes standard English, how it arose, -how it is maintained. - -The science of language comes to our aid in this inquiry and teaches -us how a language grows and develops. Before the dawn of this new -science it was supposed that the standard speech was determined by -court usage as reflected in the language of the ruling class and the -courtiers. This select body of people was believed to set the fashion -in speech, as in other things, and the educated and cultured of the -country were thought to follow their lead as a matter of course. The -common people, according to this theory, accepted as final the standard -set by the nobility, and all divergences therefrom were held to be -the result of ignorance. Not only was the court dialect regarded as -indicating absolute propriety of usage, but it was supposed to be the -original form of the vernacular speech, which the masses were expected -to imitate as perfectly as they could, in their habits of speaking -and writing. The court itself, likewise holding this view, did not -hesitate to condemn and stigmatize every departure in speech from the -received dialect as a glaring solecism which made for the corruption -and ultimate disintegration of the language. - -This is now an exploded theory. Modern philology has demonstrated -beyond a doubt that such an assumption is utterly false and untrue -to nature. For philology teaches us clearly that the urban dialect, -far from being the original tongue of which the rural dialects are -mere corruptions, was itself once only a provincial, barbarous form -of speech,--a lingo just as primitive and just as uncultivated as -any of its fellows,--and that its supremacy is the result, not of -any intrinsic superiority over its rivals, but of the political -predominance of those who employed it as their vernacular. Those who -used the urban dialect, by dint of their own intelligence and skill, -surpassed their rivals in the race for the primacy and were the -first, therefore, to establish the ascendency of their community. -Their supremacy once established, the inhabitants of the more highly -organized community proceeded at once to impose their rule upon their -weaker neighbors. The latter, being unable to resist the more powerful -and resourceful community, soon forfeited their independence and lost -their identity and were gradually absorbed. It is thus that political -pre-eminence of a primitive community over its rivals paves the way for -the growth and development of its speech, which is gradually extended -over the conquered until it finally supplants its fellows and itself -becomes supreme as the accepted language of the victorious and the -vanquished alike. - -The philologists explain the several stages of the development of a -language, distinctly marking off each, from the crude local _patois_ -to the highly developed and polished speech of a cultured nation. The -primitive tongue of a local tribe is termed a _patois_, a rudimentary -speech ill adapted to the communication of the simplest ideas. If a -_patois_ grows and develops so as to become available in vocabulary -and syntax for the expression of thought, it is called a dialect. When -a local _patois_ advances to the dialect stage, there is a marked -tendency, on the part of those employing it, to crush out its rivals -by conquest and assimilation. Consequently the triumphant dialect then -becomes the only speech of a linguistic province, and is itself perhaps -somewhat modified by the conflict from which it has emerged victorious. - -Now, there may be several independent linguistic provinces. If so, -a hard struggle for supremacy follows. Eventually some one of the -provinces succeeds in establishing its political mastery over the -others, and then begins the process of linguistic expansion and -assimilation. Thus the dialect of the most powerful province or -district is at length made the speech of the entire people. In this -manner not only all the local _patois_, but all the competing dialects -also, are either absorbed, or are crushed out by the dialect of the -dominant political community. - -A striking illustration of this process is furnished in the history -of the development of the Latin tongue. This dominant language which -still survives, more or less disguised, in the speech of a large part -of Europe, as well as in the speech of Latin America, and which has -so generously enriched our own English tongue, as Whitney tells us in -his “Language and the Study of Language,” was the vernacular less than -twenty-five centuries ago, of an insignificant district in central -Italy, the inhabitants of which at that remote day were but little -above savages. History is silent as to when and how this tribe found -their way into that region of the Italian peninsula. Their speech -was only one of a group of related dialects, “descendants and joint -representatives of an older tongue, spoken by the first immigrants, -which had grown apart by the effect of the usual dissimilating -processes.” There still survive remains of at least two of the rival -dialects, Oscan and Umbrian, which throw a flood of light on the -prehistoric period of Italian speech. The Latin dialect was threatened -on the north by the Etruscan, the vernacular of a civilized people -dwelling beyond the Tiber; and it was likewise menaced on the south -by the Greek language, spoken by the Hellenic colonies, long before -settled in southern Italy and Sicily. Both of these tongues are assumed -to have been superior in intrinsic character to the crude, primitive -dialect of the early Romans. But the rudimentary Latin speech spread -_pari passu_ with the extension of the Roman dominion. As the Roman -arms brought one Italian district after another under Roman sway, the -tongue of that mighty people grew apace and diffused itself throughout -the whole of Italy, gradually absorbing all the rival dialects. -Finally all the dialects of Italy were forced to acknowledge the -predominance of the speech of the conquering city on the Tiber,--from -the uncultivated Gaulish of the north to the facile and polished Greek -of the south. Thus all Italy came at last to have one uniform language, -to wit, Latin. - -Yet there did not result, after all, absolute uniformity of speech -throughout the whole of Italy. For though the rival dialects had one -by one given place to the triumphant advance of the all-absorbing -Latin, still in the remote rural districts relics of the native local -dialects tenaciously maintained their foothold in the popular speech; -and like paganism before the advance of Christianity, the local -dialects were loth to relinquish their strongholds in the inaccessible -country districts. Traces of the vanquished tongues were still to be -discerned in the varying local dialects throughout the remote parts of -the Italian peninsula. Nor was the common speech of Italy everywhere -current the pure classic Latin of Cicero and Vergil. On the contrary, -the vernacular of the ancient Romans, by and large, was a far less -polished and graceful idiom, “containing already the germs of many -of the changes exhibited by the modern Italian and the other Romanic -tongues.” - -A second shining example is found in the history of the rise of the -French language. This marvelously lucid tongue had its origin in a -little island in the Seine, at present the heart of the great city of -Paris. The language of the inhabitants of that tiny isle, to be sure, -was at first a rude lingo no whit superior to the various _patois_ of -Romanized Gaul. But the inhabitants of that vigorous district soon -gained the political ascendency over their neighbors and gradually -extended their speech throughout the whole of _Ile-de-France_. The -upshot was that the numerous local _patois_ speedily lost caste, -sinking to a lower and lower level, till they all finally disappeared, -and the dialect of Paris came to be recognized as the official language -of the entire central part of France. But there were also other -provinces of France besides that of _Ile-de-France_. Normandy, Provence -and Burgundy had meantime risen to marked political distinction, and -the speech of each of these provinces in due course attained to the -dignity of a dialect with a considerable body of literature. But no -one dialect was supreme. However, in the process of time the people -of central France established their pre-eminence, extending their -dominion over the entire country. Thus the sister provinces were, -in turn, brought under the sway of the predominant _Ile-de-France_ -which imposed its dialect upon its subdued rivals. In this manner the -Parisian dialect spread over the whole of France and was destined -speedily to become the accepted speech of the country. Naturally -enough, as the Parisian dialect gained the ascendency, the Provençal, -the Norman and the Burgundian dialect each fell into decay and finally -ceased to exist as a spoken dialect, being preserved only in certain -literary monuments. - -Now, the Parisian dialect did not attain to the honor of the standard -language of France without a long and hard struggle. During this -struggle the language was in process of development and underwent some -changes by attrition and contact with its strenuous rivals. In the -conflict the Parisian dialect sloughed off some of its unessentials, -its eccentricities of speech in the form of inflexions and syntax and -came forth somewhat simplified in its grammar. At the same time it -borrowed not a few idioms and phrases from its defeated rivals, thus -enriching its vocabulary and simplifying its syntax by contact with the -decadent dialects. - -Thus arose modern French--a language beautifully transparent and -precise and almost as untrammeled by inflections as English is and as -admirably adapted for the conveyance of nice distinctions and fine -shades of thought. It appears, then, that modern French is developed -from one of the pristine provincial dialects which probably enjoyed -no superior advantage over its sister dialects, but which owes its -success as a literary medium to the happy circumstance that it was the -vernacular of the most important political province. Furthermore, it -is manifest that the Provençal, Norman and Burgundian dialects are in -no sense a corrupt form of the standard speech. They are rather kindred -dialects which by sheer force of political conditions were outstripped -in the race for the distinction of being chosen as the national -language. - -Let us now consider the history of the English language. The -development of the English tongue is quite similar, if not, indeed, -parallel, to the story of Latin and French. It is in order to give here -a brief survey of the origin and development of the English speech. - -In the earliest period of our language it is assumed that there were -numerous _patois_ spoken by the Jutes, the Angles and the Saxons who -had settled in Britain as rovers and adventurers. True, we have no -record preserved of these several _patois_; but philology warrants the -inference that they existed. In the earliest stage of the Anglo-Saxon -speech of which history furnishes a record, these various _patois_ had -already given rise to some three or four distinct dialects commonly -designated, according to their respective geographical positions, -Kentish, Southern, Midland, and Northern. There are documents extant of -each of these early English dialects which constitute our Anglo-Saxon -literature. Now, each of these dialects (if Kentish is included -in the Southern dialect) marks a separate period in the political -history of Teutonic England. In the northern part of England, then -known as Northumbria, where the Angles settled after migrating from -the Continent, the Anglian dialect was first pre-eminent as the -literary language. This was during the eighth century when the leading -writers in that dialect were Caedmon and the Venerable Bede. In those -early times the Angles appear to have extended their control over -Mercia, too, even down to the northern banks of the Thames. However, -this district later had a local dialect of its own, apart from the -Northumbrian, and its chief literary monuments are a translation of the -Psalter and a version of Matthew’s Gospel designated the “Rushworth.” -The part of Britain south of the Thames and lying toward the west was -settled by the Saxons. Their dialect which scholars call the West-Saxon -was quite unlike the Anglian dialect; and it is distinguished above its -fellows as the dialect in which the bulk of our earliest literature -is written. The West-Saxon, therefore, from the grammatical point -of view is by far the most important of our early English dialects, -and is recognized by scholars as the standard for inflection and -idiom. But the pre-eminence of West-Saxon was of later date than that -of the Northumbrian dialect. From the death of Bede in 734 to the -accession of King Alfred in 871, it is interesting to note that no -one of the English dialects seems to have been supreme. However, from -the accession of Ecgberht in 802 the West-Saxon had been gradually -gaining its ascendency which was of course completed in the days of -King Alfred. This good king signalized his reign by a great revival of -learning, in which he himself was the leading figure. He summoned to -his court an earnest and enthusiastic body of scholars from various -parts of the world, and himself set them a worthy example of industry -and scholarship by translating into the vernacular Pope Gregory’s -“Pastoral Care,” Boethius’s “Consolations of Philosophy” and Orosius’s -“Chronicle.” - -After the death of King Alfred there was a sad decline in literature. -But the prowess and overlordship of Wessex had made the West-Saxon -dialect the standard literary language of England; and it continued -so till the Norman Conquest destroyed the political prestige of that -kingdom and consequently deprived that dialect of its evident advantage -as the official language. While the West-Saxon dialect was recognized, -it is true, as the literary language, still it did not entirely -supplant the Anglian and the Mercian, both of which continued to be -spoken and, to some extent, also written. But it is a significant fact -that the earlier Northumbrian poetry was translated into this southern -speech and is preserved to us only in the West-Saxon version. - -West-Saxon lost its supremacy as the standard language when, as a -result of the Conquest, Norman French was adopted by the ruling class -as the cultivated speech of the realm. Still, “the native tongue,” to -quote Professor Lounsbury (History of the English Language), “continued -to be spoken by the great majority of the population, but it went -out of use as the language of high culture. The educated classes, -whether lay or ecclesiastical, preferred to write either in Latin -or French--the latter steadily tending to become more and more the -language of literature as well as of polite society.” The result was -that West-Saxon, being supplanted as the literary language by Norman -French, lost prestige and was reduced ultimately to the level of its -sister dialects, Anglian and Mercian. After the loss of West-Saxon -ascendency no one dialect was again pre-eminent in England till the -fourteenth century. For two centuries prior to that date the several -provincial dialects were employed in their respective territories; -and each had an equal chance of becoming standard English. An author, -therefore, was free to use his own local speech. To be sure, French was -the accepted language at court and in high society; but this foreign -tongue at no time enjoyed such a commanding position as to threaten the -extinction of the native dialects. - -Indeed, the relation of the Norman French to the English dialects -has given rise to so much popular misconception and error that it -seems worth while, at this juncture, to indicate the true relation -explicitly. When the Normans conquered England, as the philologists -tell us, they did not seek to impose their language upon the English -people. Such a policy would have been very unwise for obvious reasons, -and would have produced untold trouble and conflict between the two -races. The Normans did not despise the English tongue. They were -content to let the natives speak their several English dialects just as -before the Conquest. Of course, the Normans retained their own French -_patois_ and had no expectation of abandoning it in favor of English, -as they had once before given up their Scandinavian vernacular for -French. Yet in consequence of the overwhelming preponderance of the -English natives over their Norman invaders it was inevitable, in the -event of a struggle for supremacy between the two tongues, that the -French should be forced to the wall. Fortunately, no such conflict was -designed by either race, and it is quite reasonable to suppose that -neither people ever seriously contemplated such a possibility. - -It is evident, then, that the Norman Conquest did not tend to destroy -the English tongue in Britain, as it was once the fashion to teach. The -Norman Conquest did, however, interrupt the normal literary tradition -of the English speech. For at the time of the Battle of Hastings, as -has been intimated, the West-Saxon dialect was easily the foremost -of the English provincial dialects and seemed destined to establish -its claim as being the national speech. But the Conquest interrupted -this natural process and drove West-Saxon from its coign of vantage, -reducing it to the level of the rival provincial dialects. French -being, of course, the language of the court and the official tongue -generally, the West-Saxon dialect no longer offered any special -inducement to intending authors to employ it, as had been the case -ever since the days of King Alfred. Hence writers simply used their -respective local dialects, there being no recognized standard speech. - -Norman French and the several English dialects were now spoken side -by side, and continued so for quite a long while. What more natural, -therefore, than that each tongue should exercise some influence upon -the other, however slight? It is usually stated that French influence -hastened the decay of English inflections. But the English had begun -to lose its inflections even before the coming of the Normans and to -rely more largely upon position and prepositions to indicate case -relations. No doubt, French influence accelerated this tendency. French -influence was also a factor in modifying the idiom and vocabulary of -the English tongue. But each language, as Anglo-Norman students assure -us, reacted upon the other mutually; and the speech of the invaders was -influenced by the English of the natives just as much as English was -influenced by French. - -The truth is, the influence of Norman French upon English was not so -important in itself, as far as any immediate effect was concerned; but -it paved the way for the subsequent influence of Parisian French which -swept like a mighty tidal wave over England, leaving a considerable -residuum and deposit in our speech alike in idiom and in vocabulary. -Norman influence upon our tongue was, therefore, chiefly indirect, -not direct. When Anjou was subdued by Philip Augustus of France in -1204, Normandy was forfeited by the English crown and from that day -Norman French influence on English was practically at an end. But the -Parisian dialect soon extended its sphere into Britain and began to -exert a decided influence upon the English speech. In the fourteenth -century English scholars industriously turned their attention to -French literature, either adapting or closely translating many -specimens. Norman French now gave place to the Parisian dialect which -had established itself as the standard speech for all the provinces -of France. English scholars who crossed the Channel, as many now -did, learned the French of Paris; and when they returned to their -native shores of Albion, they brought with them the best French of -Paris. Having lost caste, the Norman dialect was no longer esteemed -fashionable in polite society and consequently it fell to the lot of -Parisian French to honor the heavy drafts which the English tongue -made during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries upon the French -language, for the enrichment and augmentation of its vocabulary. Nor, -indeed, did the French importations into our speech cease even then. -They continued, only with slightly diminished activity, during the -Elizabethan and succeeding ages, down to the present time. However, -during the last few centuries our vernacular has not borrowed so -copiously from that source, although we still draw heavily on French in -our art parlance. - -Yet despite the French invasion, English held its own as the -vernacular of the people, yielding but very little ground, except in -its vocabulary, to the foreign tongue. So far from retreating before -the vigorous onslaught of French influence, our sturdy English speech -actually advanced its position and succeeded in driving French from its -former stronghold of the court and high society. For the descendants of -the Normans who were overwhelmingly in the minority, seeing that they -were compelled by sheer force of circumstances to speak English also, -gradually abandoned French as their mother-tongue and were finally -content to use the language which was understood by everybody in the -kingdom. Thus the English vernacular at last triumphed over French as -the language even of the governing class in England; and French fell -into disuse and survived as a spoken tongue only in polite society and -among scholars, as an accomplishment. - -So much for the true relation of French to English in the history of -our speech. But to return to the question of the rise of the standard -literary language in England. As has been pointed out, from 1066 -to 1300 there was no recognized standard of English speech. In the -existing confusion of provincial dialects there was felt an urgent need -for a uniform speech throughout the entire country. The perplexity -resulting from the babel of unfamiliar English dialects in use at the -time of the introduction of printing was keenly felt by the people -themselves, but by none more than by Caxton, who set up the first -printing press in England. Now, Caxton himself used London English, as -a rule. But he experienced no little embarrassment when he began to -print books, because he was uncertain as to which dialect he should -employ. In the prologue to his version of Vergil’s Aeneid he freely -confesses his inability to determine which of the varying dialects he -should adopt. Commenting on the dialectal differences he complainingly -remarks: “And that common English that is spoken in one shire varyeth -from another. Insomuch that in my days happened that certain merchants -were in a ship in Thames, for to have sailed over the sea into Zeeland, -and for lack of wind they tarried at the foreland and went to land for -to refresh them. And one of them named Sheffield, a mercer, came into -an house and axed for meat and specially he axed after eggs; and the -good wife answered that she could speak no French. And the merchant -was angry, for he could speak no French, but would have had eggs and -she understood him not. And then at last another said that he would -have eiren; then the good wife said that she understood him well. Lo, -what should a man in these days now write, _eggs_ or _eiren_? Certainly -it is hard to please every man because of diversity and change of -language.” - -This incident related by Caxton serves to illustrate how almost -unintelligible the southern dialect had become to the inhabitants -of the northern part of England in the early fifteenth century. The -several dialects spoken in England had diverged so much as to result -in a serious handicap on trade and a practical embargo on letters. -The Northern, the Southern and the Mercian (the last now split into -two minor dialects distinguished as east and west) had each risen to -the dignity of a literary language. But no one of them was recognized -as the triumphant dialect, destined to vanquish all its rivals and -to establish its sway over the entire country. At this juncture -circumstances, somehow, conspired to raise the East Midland dialect to -the primacy, enabling it to extend itself over the whole country as -the received language, the national speech. This dialect had much to -commend it to favor. To begin with, this dialect occupied a somewhat -central position geographically and so offered a compromise to the -inhabitants of the extreme northern and southern portions of England, -whose dialects were so far apart. In the second place, East Midland was -the dialect of London, the great commercial center--the emporium--of -Great Britain. It was also the dialect of the famous university towns -where the flower of the English nobility was trained. Furthermore, -it was the dialect of the Court and Parliament whenever they spoke -English. Finally, it was the dialect of Wycklif’s version of the Bible -and of Chaucer, “that well of English undefiled” whose refreshing -stream of song carried joy and gladness to every part of the island. - -It is sometimes said that Chaucer’s poetic genius moulded the literary -language of England. This is a pleasant illusion, but not quite in -accord with the facts. Chaucer, in conformity to the custom of the -times, simply wrote in his native dialect. That dialect, it is true, -happened to be the dialect of the chief city of the realm and of -the most powerful elements in the state, the ruling class. It was a -mere accident that Chaucer spoke and wrote this same dialect as his -vernacular. In no sense did Chaucer create the London dialect. Nor -did he make it the received literary language, the standard speech of -the English people. This dictum was once accepted, but needless to -add it is now discredited by scholars. Yet Chaucer’s influence as the -foremost English author of his age was assuredly not without weight in -establishing the dialect of London as the standard literary language -of the kingdom. It is a significant fact that this dialect (which -was the dialect of the Court) had attained the distinction of being -the literary language of England, by the first half of the fifteenth -century, though perhaps it was a mere coincidence that this was only a -short time after Chaucer’s death. It is quite possible, yea probable, -that the East Midland dialect would have established its supremacy -as the standard language of England even if Chaucer had written his -works in French, or Latin, or Scotch. But it is not unreasonable to -suppose that an author of such rare and commanding genius as Chaucer -contributed not a little to hasten the process of the spread of his -native dialect and its acceptance as the standard language of the -realm. The acknowledged excellence of his poetic works tended, no -doubt, to stamp the dialect in which they were written as literary -English and furnished a sufficient guaranty, in after years, that his -language was classic English. - -The effect of the establishment of the East Midland dialect as the -standard language of England was soon observed in the rapid declension -and ultimate disuse of all the rival dialects. For as soon as the -dialect of London was recognized as supreme, no author could be -expected to court oblivion by employing any of the decadent provincial -dialects as his medium of expression. Hence all the provincial dialects -hitherto employed now either fell into disuse, or survived only as a -mere local _patois_ without any literary pretensions--a rustic lingo -heard only on the lips of the illiterate and uncultured. Such was the -fate of the various Middle English dialects, Scotch only excepted. -The Northern dialect, or Scottish, seems to have maintained itself -for quite a considerable time. Indeed, Scottish was recognized as -the standard language of Scotland as long as that northern kingdom -preserved its independence. Down to the time of James the First, -therefore, there was a dual standard in the language of Great Britain, -the English of London which was the vernacular of England and the -Scottish of Edinburgh, which was the vernacular of Scotland. In 1603, -upon the accession of James the First, the Scottish as a literary -tongue was abandoned in favor of standard English, as a result of the -political organic union of Scotland with England. From that time to the -present there has been only one standard English language for Great -Britain. Yet the language spoken in Scotland preserves not a few traces -of the old Scotch dialect mingled with standard English, which imparts -to it its Scotch characteristics. This is more particularly noticeable -in the speech of the common people and occasionally in the works of -a popular poet like Burns, although his language contains very few -strictly Scotch words. - -It has been shown how standard English was enriched in vocabulary and -idiom by contact with the French language. It is to the Norman Conquest -that our speech is largely indebted for its double vocabulary which -gives English a unique place among modern languages. The skeleton of -our English tongue has always remained Teutonic, despite the unusually -large number of words it has assimilated from French and other foreign -sources. In our vocabulary, which has been so vastly swollen by our -French borrowings, the native English words, if one may venture to -make a rough distinction, are employed to signify objects of domestic -association, homespun ideas and thoughts, while the words of Romance -origin are reserved to express objects that are associated with luxury -and delicate culture and to convey subtle shades of thought. When two -or more words are used to signify very much the same thing, the genius -of the English speech tends to differentiate and to restrict the words -to separate and special senses. This, of course, makes the language -more flexible and more facile as a medium of expression. - -Just as English was enriched by contact with French, so it has been -improved, though to a less extent, by attrition and contact with -its sister dialects. By elbowing its way to the front through the -various dialects which jostled it, the dialect which developed into -standard English naturally lost by attrition most of the grammatical -peculiarities that hampered it. It was, of course, a decided advantage -to the London dialect, in its struggle for the distinction of the -standard speech, to throw off such inflections as proved a hindrance -to its complete development. Most philologists used to regard the loss -of superfluous inflections a symptom of decadence in a language. Now, -however, such a process is regarded a sign of virility and progress. -“The fewer and shorter the forms, the better,” affirms the eminent -Danish philologist Jespersen. “The analytical structure of modern -European languages is so far from being a drawback to them that it -gives them an unimpeachable superiority over the earlier stages of the -same language.” This high authority even goes so far as to declare that -“the so-called full and rich forms of the ancient languages are not a -beauty, but a deformity.” - -Thus in the process of its development standard English was gradually -freed of many of its pristine grammatical encumbrances, to take its -place in the front rank of living tongues as the best equipped for a -universal language. And the end is not yet. For the work of simplifying -is still in progress. The history of our speech from the fifteenth -century down to the present day proves nothing more conclusively than -that English tends ever to become more and more simple in inflection -and syntax. Witness the dwindling use of the subjunctive mood, which -has been almost driven from the field of modern English syntax by the -constantly encroaching indicative. Another example in point is the -transfer of the function of the absolute case from the dative, an -oblique case, to the nominative. This shifting has been accomplished -since the time of Milton, who represents the transitional period. It is -evident then that the tendency of standard English is in the direction -of simplicity, and its future growth will, no doubt, be along the line -of least resistance. Certainly its _vis inertiae_ seems destined, -unless acted upon by some violent external force, to move in that -direction. - -It need hardly be added that standard English, like every spoken -language, has undergone change, from age to age. Some words become -obsolete and drop out of the vocabulary. New words are coined to -take their places, and if, after a period of probation, they prove -acceptable, they are received into good usage and are recognized as -standard. In this manner the waste that necessarily occurs in living -English, as in every living language, is repaired. Thus the English -speech grows, adapting itself to the many and varied conditions which -are exacted of it as the medium for the communication of thought for -the millions of people in every quarter of the globe who use it. Here -and there slight variations from the normal, slight departures from -the standard, are made. But unless the locutions which constitute -these departures possess extraordinary vitality and force, unless they -persist with dogged tenacity and supply a real need in the language, -they are doomed to perish without leaving any appreciable effect upon -the standard speech. - -What, then, determines standard English? The reply, in a nutshell, -is the usage of the best writers and speakers. Standard English is -determined by the habitual manner the learned and cultured employ to -express their thoughts and feelings in words. The customary mode of -expression now in vogue among the most careful users of English has -been inherited from the generations of writers and speakers who have -employed our speech in the centuries past as their vernacular. The -leading English authors from Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, -Dryden, Swift, Johnson and a host of others, down to the living -writers, have each in his way contributed to make our standard literary -language. Each of these, it is true, has influenced standard English in -some degree. No one can fail to see the impress which such an eccentric -writer as Doctor Johnson, the literary dictator of the eighteenth -century, stamped upon the standard English of his age. Our speech -shows no less distinctly marked traces of the influence of Addison. For -Addison’s admirable style, with its characteristic grace, crispness and -lightness of touch, even Johnson himself warmly commended, although -the great Cham’s innate tendency to the stilted, the turgid and the -ponderous prevented him from approximating in his practice what in -his preaching he so ardently held up for the imitation and emulation -of others. To mention another concrete example, in more recent times -standard English has been swayed somewhat by Macaulay’s passionate love -of antithesis and of the periodic structure of the sentence. Attention -might be called, likewise, to the influence of Gibbon’s chaste and -classic style (albeit a trifle heavy and wearisome at times) upon our -standard literary language, or to the influence of another prominent -author whose style is still more unique and distinctive--Thomas -Carlyle. Away back in the early history of English one may observe -in the style of the West-Saxon translator of Bede’s “Ecclesiastical -History” a trick of repetition which has made a lasting impression -on our standard speech; and it still survives in such familiar -tautological phrases as “really and truly,” “bright and shining,” “pure -and simple,” “without let or hindrance,” “toil and delve,” “confirm -and strengthen,” and “lord and master.” All of these locutions, as -Professor Kittredge informs us, in his suggestive book, “Words and -Their Ways in English Speech,” are in high favor, and are recognized as -standard English. Euphuism is a movement that swept over Elizabethan -English in the wake of the tidal wave of ink-horn terms, materially -affecting the standard speech. Even Shakespeare could not quite resist -the fashion of Euphuism, and his English is indeed slightly colored -thereby. Another trick of style which has cropped out here and there, -from the days of Spenser down to the present age, is that of employing -archaic terms with the intent to revive them. On the score of this -affectation the most flagrant sinner among modern authors is William -Morris, whose writings furnish a veritable treasure-trove of curious -and amusing archaisms. But it is not worth while to multiply examples. -Let those already given suffice to illustrate how standard English has -been swayed, from time to time, even by the devices and attractions of -dame fashion. - -It is to be noted, in conclusion, that standard English is no longer -confined to the usage of any given locality, as was the case in -the early history of the language. The English language spoken in -London does not now enjoy the distinction of determining the standard -universally accepted. A special mode of utterance or a special idiom is -not now regarded proper simply and solely because it is sanctioned by -London usage. Indeed, that British metropolis appears rather to have -broken with its enviable past and worthy traditions in the matter of -its English, for London is now recognized as the home of the “cockney” -dialect. Nowhere more than on the lips of the native Londoner is the -purity of our noble tongue in jeopardy. Strange to say, the English -vernacular of the native Londoner has, of late years, fallen into -disrepute by reason of its abounding improprieties, its teeming -provincialisms and its solecisms. No educated man who professes English -as his mother-tongue would, to-day, think of making his speech conform -to the usage of London as reflected in the local dialect. It used to be -the custom to take London English as a model; but not so now, since the -local speech has become so corrupt as to prove a constant menace to the -purity of the living tongue. Perhaps it should be added, in order to -forestall adverse criticism, that standard English is, of course, heard -in London, as elsewhere, upon the lips of the educated and cultured. -But it is worth while to emphasize this fact, even at the risk of -repetition, that standard English is no longer confined to any given -locality or to any one country, for the matter of that, but is written -and spoken in America, in far-off India, and in other remote parts of -the world as well as in the British Isles. For wherever the English -language is employed, whether written or spoken, in accordance with -the best traditions of that rich, flexible and copious tongue, there -standard English is found, in whatever quarter of the globe it may be. - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes - -Page 10: “linguistc ideal” changed to “linguistic ideal” - -Page 14: A missing footnote anchor was added. - -Page 29: “St. James Gazettte” changed to “St. James Gazette” - -Page 73: “early pronunication” changed to “early pronunciation” - -Page 85: “in consequenec” changed to “in consequence” - -Page 90: “mode of pronuncing” changed to “mode of pronouncing” - -Page 102: “the quailty” changed to “the quality” - -Page 105: “not owning allegiance” changed to “not owing allegiance” - -Page 108: “very seriiously” changed to “very seriously” - -Page 113: “English lierature” changed to “English literature” - -Page 115: “cvil war” changed to “civil war” - -Page 123: “the senes of very” changed to “the sense of very” - -Page 129: “let is be distinctly” changed to “let it be distinctly” - -Page 130: “what constiutes” changed to “what constitutes” - -Page 149: “Danish philologist Jesperen” changed to “Danish philologist -Jespersen” - -Page 150: “constantly encoraching” changed to “constantly encroaching” - -Page 152: “no less distainctly” changed to “no less distinctly” - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK QUESTIONS AT ISSUE IN OUR -ENGLISH SPEECH *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/67953-0.zip b/old/67953-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index d1bdc69..0000000 --- a/old/67953-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67953-h.zip b/old/67953-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index c4da7d7..0000000 --- a/old/67953-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67953-h/67953-h.htm b/old/67953-h/67953-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 0429330..0000000 --- a/old/67953-h/67953-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4776 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> -<head> - <meta charset="UTF-8" /> - <title> - Questions at Issue in Our English Speech, by Edwin W. Bowen—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover" /> - <style> /* <![CDATA[ */ - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; -} -abbr[title] {text-decoration: none;} -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1em; -} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p0 {text-indent: 0em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -hr.r5 {width: 5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 47.5%; margin-right: 47.5%;} - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} -h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} - - -table { - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; -} -table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; width: 70%} -table.autotable td, -table.autotable th { padding: 4px; } -.x-ebookmaker table {width: 95%;} - -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.page {width: 2em;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; -} /* page numbers */ - -.bbox {border: 2px solid; margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} - -.center {text-align: center; text-indent: 0em;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} -img.w50 {width: 50%;} -.x-ebookmaker .w50 {width: 75%;} -.w10 {width: 10%;} -.x-ebookmaker .w10 {width: 15%;} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: 1px dashed; margin-top: 2em; margin-left: 3%; margin-right: 3%;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -/* Poetry */ -.poetry {text-align: left; margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%;} -/* uncomment the next line for centered poetry in browsers */ -/* .poetry {display: inline-block;} */ -/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ -@media print { .poetry {display: block;} } -.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block;} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - -.small {font-size: 0.8em;} -.big {font-size: 1.2em;} - /* ]]> */ </style> -</head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Questions at Issue in Our English Speech, by Edwin W. Bowen</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: Questions at Issue in Our English Speech</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: Edwin W. Bowen</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: April 29, 2022 [eBook #67953]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: Tim Lindell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK QUESTIONS AT ISSUE IN OUR ENGLISH SPEECH ***</div> - - - - -<div class="bbox"> -<h1> <i>Questions at Issue in<br /> -<span class="big">Our English Speech</span></i></h1> - -<p class="center p2"><span class="figcenter" id="img002a"> - <img src="images/002.jpg" class="w50" alt="Decorative border" /> -</span></p> - -<p class="center big p2"> <i>Edwin W. Bowen, Ph.D.</i></p> - -<p class="center"> <i>Author of<br /> - “Makers of American Literature”</i></p> - -<p class="center p2"><span class="figcenter" id="img001"> - <img src="images/001.jpg" class="w10" alt="Publisher mark" /> -</span></p> - -<p class="center p2"><span class="figcenter" id="img002b"> - <img src="images/002.jpg" class="w50" alt="Decorative border" /> -</span></p> - -<p class="center"><span class="big"><i>Broadway Publishing Company</i></span><br /> - <i>PUBLISHERS AND BOOKSELLERS</i><br /> -<i>835 Broadway, ⁂ New York</i> -</p> -</div> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<p class="center small"> <span class="smcap">Copyright, 1909</span></p> - -<p class="center small">BY</p> - -<p class="center">EDWIN W. BOWEN, Ph.D.</p> -<hr class="r5" /> -<p class="center small"><i>All Rights Reserved</i> -</p> - -</div> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="ACKNOWLEDGMENT"><i>ACKNOWLEDGMENT</i></h2> -</div> - - -<p><i>Practically all the matter in this collection of essays has been -printed elsewhere. Four of the articles, “A Question of Preference -in English Spelling,” “Authority in English Pronunciation,” “What -Is Slang?” and “Briticisms versus Americanisms,” first appeared in -the “Popular Science Monthly” and are here reproduced with the kind -permission of the editor of that journal. The paper, “Vulgarisms -with a Pedigree,” is rewritten from three brief essays on allied -themes which were published in the “Atlantic Monthly” and the “North -American Review.” The essay on “Our English Spelling of Yesterday—Why -Antiquated?” is reprinted from the “Methodist Review.” I wish here -to thank the publishers of these periodicals for permission to -reprint.</i></p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="CONTENTS">CONTENTS.</h2> -</div> -<hr class="r5" /> - -<table class="autotable"> -<tr> -<th class="tdr page" colspan="2"> -PAGE -</th> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"> -<a href="#OUR_ENGLISH_SPELLING_OF_YESTERDAYWHY_ANTIQUATED">Our English Spelling of Yesterday. Why Antiquated</a> -</td> -<td class="tdr page"> -<a href="#Page_1">1</a> -</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#A_QUESTION_OF_PREFERENCE_IN_ENGLISH_SPELLING">A Question of Preference in English Spelling</a> -</td> -<td class="tdr page"> -<a href="#Page_25">25</a> -</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#AUTHORITY_IN_ENGLISH_PRONUNCIATION">Authority in English Pronunciation</a> -</td> -<td class="tdr page"> -<a href="#Page_38">38</a> -</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#VULGARISMS_WITH_A_PEDIGREE">Vulgarisms With a Pedigree</a> -</td> -<td class="tdr page"> -<a href="#Page_60">60</a> -</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#BRITICISMS_VERSUS_AMERICANISMS">Briticisms Versus Americanisms</a> -</td> -<td class="tdr page"> -<a href="#Page_82">82</a> -</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#WHAT_IS_SLANG">What is Slang?</a> -</td> -<td class="tdr page"> -<a href="#Page_108">108</a> -</td> -</tr> -<tr> -<td class="tdl"><a href="#STANDARD_ENGLISHHOW_IT_AROSE_AND_HOW_IT_IS_MAINTAINED">Standard English. How it Arose and How it is Maintained</a> -</td> -<td class="tdr page"> -<a href="#Page_130">130</a> -</td> -</tr> -</table> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="OUR_ENGLISH_SPELLING_OF_YESTERDAYWHY_ANTIQUATED">OUR ENGLISH SPELLING OF YESTERDAY—WHY ANTIQUATED?</h2> -</div> - - -<p>There is a marked distinction between spoken and written language. -In writing a system of conventional symbols is adopted to represent -speech. At best such a system is ill-devised and incomplete. In many -cases, as in our own tongue, the written language fairly bristles -with innumerable inaccuracies and inconsistencies and with flagrant -absurdities of orthography. Of course the written language is only an -imperfect attempt to represent graphically the spoken speech and is -a mere shadow of the real substance, of the living tongue. No system -of symbols has been adopted which represent with absolute accuracy -and adequacy a spoken language at all periods of its history. It is a -matter of extreme doubt whether any living language is now, or ever -has been, represented by its alphabet with absolute accuracy and -precision. It is quite probable that no living European tongue is today -represented by its alphabet with more than approximate accuracy and -completeness. As for the dead languages, like the classics, we may -be reasonably certain that neither the Greek nor the Latin alphabet -correctly and adequately represented those respective languages at all -periods of their history. The body of Latin literature<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span> now extant -is but a desiccated, lifeless mummy of the living, pulsating speech -which was heard upon the lips of the ancient Romans. Of that robust -and vigorous Latin vernacular, as employed by Cicero and Virgil in all -its purity, we have only embalmed specimens, preserved to us in the -stirring rhetorical periods of that prince of Roman orators and in the -stately rhythmical hexameters of that famous Mantuan bard. <i>Quantum -mutatum ab illo</i>—how unlike the spoken language, how unlike the -burning eloquence which used to thrill the populace in the ancient -Roman Forum! Small wonder we are accustomed now to speak of the tongue -of the ancient Roman and of the tongue of the ancient Hellene as a -“dead language,” for those noble tongues perished, truly, centuries -ago, when they ceased to be spoken by the inhabitants of Rome and -Athens respectively.</p> - -<p>However, the classics are not the only “dead languages.” There is a -sense in which some of the modern languages may be said to be “dead.” -Even our own Saxon tongue, which good King Alfred employed in all -its pristine purity both in conversation and in the translations -which he made for his people, is practically as “dead” as Latin or -Greek, inasmuch as it is no longer possible for us to think in terms -of the Anglo-Saxon or to speak with the accents and sounds of that -rugged, unpolished idiom. Indeed, the speech of Chaucer and even of -Shakespeare, no less than that of King Alfred, is to all intents -and purposes a “dead” tongue to the English-speaking people of the -twentieth century, for we no longer employ the idiom and the sound -values<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span> then current. We have the language of those times, it is true, -preserved in the works of Chaucer and in our rich literary heritage -from the Elizabethan age, but the speech of those times—the vernacular -spoken by the mellifluous-tongued and myriad-minded Shakespeare, no -less than that employed by that “verray perfight gentil knight,” -Chaucer—is no longer heard upon the lips of the users of English -and may therefore be said to be “dead.” These authors have left us -a photograph more or less faithful and true, though not a speaking -likeness, of the English language then existent. How our English -vernacular has changed ever since the days of the famous virgin queen, -not to mention the more radical changes of the far-remote days of the -ill-starred Richard II! A spoken language is constantly changing. It -grows and develops, or languishes and decays, upon the lips of those -who employ it as their mother-tongue, now incorporating into itself new -expressions and idioms and now casting off such as are old and worn -out. But it is no easy matter to fix its ever-shifting, kaleidoscopic -form, or to determine its chameleon color. The spoken language is -modified by each speaker who uses it as a medium for the communication -of his thoughts and feelings. The words which a man employs to convey -his thoughts to his fellow man have not an absolute and unvarying -significance. They have only a relative meaning, not a rigid and -definite signification, which is essential in the nature of the term, -and they express only the ideas which the writer or speaker puts -into them. The same word, as is well known, has<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span> entirely different -meanings in different passages or is employed in different senses by -the speaker. Hence a prolific source of ambiguity in language. In the -last analysis words are only conventional signs which mean whatever -the speaker and hearer agree to make them mean. Striking illustration -of this fact is furnished by our current social phrases, as Professor -Kittredge points out in his “Words and their Ways in English -Speech.”<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Such conventional phrases as “Not at home,” “Delighted -to see you,” “Sorry to have missed you when you called” are familiar -everyday expressions which have no essential fixed meaning. To be -sure, they mean what their face value imports, but they are generally -regarded as merely polite forms—etiquette—nothing more.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, the sounds which constitute words have to be learned -by the tedious process of imitation, and in this very process the -sounds are modified to a greater or less extent. In childhood—in -fact, in infancy—we begin the slow and painful process of acquiring a -vocabulary to express our ideas and we continue the work till death, -ever imitating more or less closely the habits of speech of those -about us. Thus language is modified perhaps without conscious effort, -upon our part. By careful speakers the purity and the propriety of our -speech are safeguarded. On the other hand, our language is corrupted -and debased by those of careless and slipshod habits of utterance. -In any case,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span> however, whether upon the lips of the cultured and -refined or upon the lips of the untutored and ignorant, the language -is constantly undergoing modifications for better or for worse. Since -it is true that a spoken language is ever changing and never remains -fixed, how great and far-reaching must be the modification and change -which our own English speech has undergone during the many generations -of its history! Because our written language has experienced -comparatively little alteration since the invention of printing, it -does not follow that the spoken speech has remained constant and -unchanged from century to century. Indeed, nothing is farther from the -truth. But even our written language has been subjected to some minor -alteration and slight modification since the days of Caxton, reputed -the first English printer. Spoken English, which is the real, living -language, has undergone infinite change during the last five centuries, -and has diverged more and more from the idiom of Chaucer and Caxton, -so that it is today almost an entirely different tongue. English -orthography never has kept pace with the written language. Before the -invention of printing our spelling failed to reflect the modifications -which took place in the pronunciation of our tongue and the printing -press served to establish and stereotype the conventional spelling then -in vogue, which the characteristic conservatism of the Anglo-Saxon race -has ever since preserved in its crystallized, fossilized form.</p> - -<p>The printing press, therefore, is largely responsible for our -inconsistent, archaic and unphonetic English<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span> orthography. When -printing was introduced into England, such bewildering confusion -and signal want of uniformity prevailed in writing and speaking the -vernacular that expediency and business exigencies alike suggested -a modification of our received spelling, and soon an imperative -demand for simplicity and uniformity was felt among the printers. In -response to this demand, and in order to facilitate the labor of the -compositor and reader, a conventional mode of spelling was adopted -and put into general use by the printers. Thus English orthography -was taken from the direct control of the intellectual class who wrote -books, and was turned over to a mechanical class who simply printed -books. The intellectual class strove to make the spelling of our tongue -conform to the pronunciation. With this object always in view English -orthography was permitted a wide variation. A writer, therefore, -enjoyed considerable latitude and freedom of choice and was untrammeled -by the binding authority of tradition or convention. The mechanical -class who undertook to establish our spelling for us at the same time -that they printed our manuscripts experienced serious difficulty in -their effort to represent an ever-varying orthography. Above all things -they aimed to reduce English orthography to some uniform notation, and -at length they achieved their purpose. Thus uniformity in our spelling -was secured, but at the sacrifice of accuracy and precision; for the -conventional orthography adopted by the early printers in England was -by no means scientific or accurate even at the time of its adoption, -and no attempt was made<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span> later to make the received orthography -adequately reproduce the pronunciation. Consequently there arose a wide -divergence between written and spoken English. Not the least important -result is the loss of knowledge we have sustained as to how successive -past generations of Englishmen spoke the vernacular. The result, which -is obvious to everyone and frequently an embarrassment to some, is the -innumerable obstacles which our archaic and inconsistent orthography -necessarily places in the way of those of the present generation who -have to learn English.</p> - -<p>Sometimes, indulging in a little persiflage, we point with pardonable -pride to the great achievements of our race and descant upon the -marvelous beauty and flexibility of our noble English speech. We -glory in the fact that “we speak the tongue that Shakespeare spoke,” -although we may not hold the faith and morals which Milton held. We -look with leniency upon such an oratorical or poetic utterance as a -harmless effusion of patriotic sentiment. Yet how few really are those -who today know the tongue that Shakespeare spoke! Because we speak the -vernacular we take it for granted, as a matter of course, that we speak -the language and employ the idiom of Shakespeare, little reflecting -how different our present-day English sounds from Elizabethan English. -Very few persons, indeed, have an accurate knowledge of Shakespearean -English. Our speech has taken a long step in advance since the halcyon -days of Queen Elizabeth, and it is a far cry from the twentieth century -to the sixteenth century<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span> English. Perhaps it is not wide of the mark -to affirm that not one person in a thousand of those using English as -their mother tongue could today understand a play of Shakespeare if -read with the author’s own accent and pronunciation. Spoken with the -original sound values, in accordance with authorized usage at the time -of its production, the play of Hamlet would seem to us today a foreign -tongue. With the words of Shakespeare’s plays according to our present -fashion of pronunciation we are quite familiar, but we know no more how -the master dramatist would have uttered them, as Ellis observes in his -“Early English Pronunciation,”<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> than we know how to write a play in -his idiom. The speech of Shakespeare has long since departed from us; -and if acquired today, it must be acquired as a new tongue at the cost -of untold study and unstinted toil. It would be necessary to delve into -Elizabethan antiquities and consult contemporary authorities on English -pronunciation in order to determine the accepted values of English -sounds then in use and reproduce the vernacular of that remote age. -This would involve a vast deal of patient labor and generous study, and -even at this costly price we could only hope to ascertain Shakespeare’s -speech with approximate accuracy of detail. So far has our spoken -English today left behind the written English of the Elizabethan age.</p> - -<p>Were it a physical possibility, it would be equally instructive and -interesting to hear our English<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span> tongue uttered with the characteristic -accents and sounds of each successive period of its history from the -age of King Alfred to the Victorian era. What a vast and striking -difference there must be registered between the received pronunciations -of these several periods, embracing a lapse of time of well-nigh ten -centuries! How they gradually shade into each other as the colors of -the prism! History records a wide divergence of the speech of King -Edward VII from that of King Alfred, and yet both of these are but -extremes of the same English language which has enjoyed an unbroken -continuity of development through so many centuries. How different our -language must have sounded upon the lips of the leading English men -of letters from Chaucer, Wickliffe, Langland, and Spenser, on down to -Dryden, Milton, Pope, and Addison! When we speak of the English speech -of a given period in the past, we naturally think of the pronunciation -as being uniform all over England. We assume without sufficient warrant -that there was a standard of pronunciation that prevailed throughout -England in those remote times, just as there is a recognized standard, -with but slight variation, that prevails in England and America at -the present day. However, even today there is no absolute standard -of pronunciation. An absolute, definite English orthoëpy does not -exist in reality; it is only a phantom, a figment of a precisian -imagination without a counterpart in nature. We use the phrase for -convenience, to be sure, but there never has been any such thing as an -absolute standard of pronunciation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span> in English, and is not now. The -nearest approach to it is a linguistic ideal to which the users of our -English speech aim, with more or less conscious effort, to make their -pronunciation conform.</p> - -<p>Still, the educated pronunciation of England and America comes much -nearer to a common standard today than was ever the case before in the -history of the English language. In Elizabethan times the usage of -London and the Court did not prevail throughout the various shires of -England, where the pronunciation was somewhat provincial. The tendency -of English pronunciation in modern times has been toward uniformity. -But in the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries it is almost -a straining of the meaning of words, as Ellis truly remarks, to talk of -a general English pronunciation. In those good old days there was no -received standard of pronunciation in England, and every man was free -to speak English according to his own sense of propriety. Indeed, prior -to the age of Chaucer not only was there no standard of pronunciation, -but there was no acknowledged standard of literary English. There -were various provincial dialects and also a Court dialect, but none -of these was of sufficient influence to triumph over the rest and to -compel universal imitation and adoption. After the Elizabethan age -local usage in the matter of English pronunciation declined steadily, -and the standard of the metropolis gradually commended itself, with -increasing influence, till it spread more or less completely over the -entire country. Consequently at the time of the rise of the pronouncing -dictionary,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span> in the eighteenth century, when the great middle class -had begun to attain to prominence, provincial pronunciation fell into -disrepute, and people everywhere clamored for a guide to Court usage -in the matter of English orthoëpy. From that time to the present -there has been a close approach to uniformity of utterance in our -English speech. But in the very nature of things there cannot, of -course, be a standard pronunciation without absolute uniformity of -utterance, and it need hardly be remarked that this does not exist. -Nevertheless, the influence and dominance of the pronouncing dictionary -are clearly in the direction of a standard pronunciation and have made -possible the existing approach to that end. It is quite remarkable how -potent the influence of the pronouncing dictionary is upon English -pronunciation.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> Despite the fact that such an orthoëpic authority -is at best arbitrary, and somewhat artificial, it has enjoyed a kind -of undisputed supremacy since the days of <abbr title="doctor">Dr.</abbr> Johnson, the literary -autocrat of the eighteenth century; and its tyranny seems not yet -ended. For the English-speaking world still defers to the authority of -the pronouncing dictionary and to that extent is under its thrall and -has not the courage to challenge it and to assert its own independence -in matters of orthoëpy.</p> - -<p>Prior to the eighteenth century the pronouncing dictionary was unknown. -It therefore cannot boast the authority of a long antiquity. There -were, however, certain guides to correct orthoëpy even in those<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span> early -times, at least in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There are -preserved to us certain records of contemporary orthoëpists which throw -light upon English pronunciation in those remote times. We are not -therefore left to conjecture simply in this matter. These authorities, -to be sure, leave much to be desired in any disputed question of our -early pronunciation. Their descriptions of the accepted orthoëpy of -their respective centuries as well as their graphic representations -of the English sounds are far from lucid, and they sometimes make -confusion worse confounded. Some of the orthoëpists were content to -refer to Latin, Greek, or Hebrew sounds as a standard of comparison -for English pronunciation, sublimely unconscious of the fact that the -older pronunciation of these languages is not yet established to the -satisfaction of all scholars and that the modern pronunciation varies -with different countries. Others of them used key words the value of -which it is extremely difficult to determine definitely. Others again -refer to such unstable standards of comparison as contemporary French -and Italian. Yet, amid the endless confusion and apparent conflict of -these incomplete records, that eminent authority on our English speech -succeeded, by dint of his laborious erudition and untiring patience, -in solving the numberless difficulties with which the question of our -early pronunciation was beset. By this achievement <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Ellis placed -the world of scholars under lasting obligation by determining for us, -with approximate accuracy, the successive values of our early English -sounds down to the age of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span> pronouncing dictionary. Let <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Ellis -give us in his own words a summary of his arduous investigation. -“The pronunciation of English during the sixteenth century,” says -he, “was thus rendered tolerably clear, and the mode in which it -broke into that of the seventeenth century became traceable. But the -seventeenth century was, like the fifteenth, one of civil war, that is -of extraordinary commingling of the population, and consequently one -of marked linguistic change. Between the fourteenth and the sixteenth -centuries our language was almost born anew. In the seventeenth -century the idiomatic changes are by no means so evident, but the -pronunciation altered distinctly in some remarkable points. These -facts, and the breaking up of the seventeenth into the eighteenth -century pronunciation, which when established scarcely differed from -the present, are well brought to light by Wallis, Wilkins, Owen, Price, -Cooper, Miege, and Jones, followed by Buchanan, Franklin, and Sheridan. -It became, therefore, possible to assign with considerable accuracy the -pronunciation of Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Dryden, and Pope, or -rather of their contemporaries.”<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> - -<p>In the English language there is manifest a tendency for the -pronunciation to conform to the orthography. Our pronunciation seems -to be more a matter of the eye than of the ear. By this is meant that -the spelling of an English word exerts an appreciable influence upon -its pronunciation. We feel, somehow, instinctively that the spelling -ought to be an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span> index, perhaps a reasonably trustworthy guide to the -pronunciation of a word. It seems not in keeping with the eternal -fitness of things, certainly contrary to our linguistic instinct and -opposed to the genius of our English speech, for pronunciation to be -entirely dissociated from orthography. We feel that the sound should -be forever and inseparably wedded to the writing, and our linguistic -sense is more or less shocked when the two are divorced. Especially -is this sentiment prevalent in America. What else could have prompted -the slight modification in the writing of such words as <i>favor</i>, -<i>honor</i>, <i>neighbor</i>,<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> etc., where American usage has -seen fit to make a departure from the time-honored British usage in -discarding the silent letter? Of course, as far as orthography is -concerned, there is very little difference between American and British -usage. In America we aim to pronounce more nearly as we spell. Yet even -in American English the pronunciation is occasionally divorced from -the spelling, particularly in proper names, but in British English -this feature is still more noticeable, and, no doubt, American usage -in this particular is simply to be regarded as a concession to British -authority and custom.<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> For there appears to be no general principle -governing the pronunciation of proper names, the same name being -sometimes differently pronounced in different localities. Besides, many -of our proper names are direct importations from the mother country -and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span> therefore have naturally retained their imported pronunciations. -In British usage the pronunciation and spelling are not infrequently -at glaring variance, as in <i>Pall Mall</i> and <i>Cholmondeley</i>, -which may serve as a type of this class of proper names. We might -offer <i>Taliaferro</i> as an American Roland for the British Oliver. -But where should we find a parallel in American English to the -characteristic British <i>clerk</i> and <i>military</i>, to cite only -two examples of a class of words of which the distinctive usage of the -United States and Great Britain is at variance?</p> - -<p>Perhaps the true explanation of this variation between British and -American usage is found in the fact that America is a new country, -and hence tradition here does not carry such binding authority as -in the Old World. There the pronunciation has been handed down by -word of mouth, from generation to generation, among a people “to the -manner born.” Here conditions are much altered. America has a large -foreign-born element, and consequently many of the people cannot claim -English as their native tongue and are compelled to learn it as a -foreign language. Hence they rely, in a measure, upon the spelling -to indicate the pronunciation of English, making it a study for the -eye quite as much as for the ear. If in democratic America the habits -of speech were as thoroughly established as they are in aristocratic -England then we should speak the English language without any reference -to its orthography. But political conditions have modified our American -English somewhat, causing it to vary slightly from British usage. A -rise in social rank,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span> which is quite common in the New World though -rare in the Old, is frequently marked by a revision of one’s former -mode of utterance, especially if your self-made man happens to have -come of an obscure and unlettered family.</p> - -<p>Assuredly English orthography is no criterion of received -pronunciation, either in America or in England. It requires only a -moment’s reflection to be convinced how misleading and deceptive is -our orthography as a guide to orthoëpy. Foreigners who undertake -to learn our tongue are naturally more forcibly impressed with the -utter untrustworthiness of this guide. The status of our orthography -has been correctly described by a prominent historian of our noble -speech. He says, “English is now the most barbarously spelled of any -cultivated tongue in Christendom. We are weltering in an orthographic -chaos in which a multitude of signs are represented by the same sound -and a multitude of sounds by the same sign.”<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> There is no doubt -that our spelling is exceedingly unphonetic and unscientific. In our -alphabet are only twenty-six characters to represent the multiplicity -of sounds which exist in the English language. The utter inadequacy -of our imperfect alphabet makes its strongest appeal—albeit mute—in -its vowel notation. Here the many distinct vocalic sounds with their -gradations in which English abounds must all be represented by five -symbols. Add to this that we employ the same orthographic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span> device to -indicate quantity. The one vowel symbol <i>a</i>, for example, is -written to indicate the various divergent sounds heard in the words -<i>father</i>, <i>fate</i>, <i>fat</i>, <i>fall</i>, <i>ask</i>, -and <i>fare</i>. Likewise the single letter <i>o</i> is employed to -represent the diverse gradations of that sound which we utter in the -words <i>floor</i>, <i>room</i>, <i>frog</i>, <i>off</i>, <i>note</i>, -and <i>not</i>. Again we use diagraphs, such as <i>ea</i>, <i>ee</i>, -<i>oa</i>, <i>ei</i>, <i>ie</i>, etc., to represent a single vowel -sound and diphthongs as well. As has been pointed out by Professor -Lounsbury, one and the same sound is now represented by <i>e</i> in -<i>let</i>, by <i>ea</i> in <i>head</i>, by <i>ei</i> in <i>heifer</i>, -by <i>eo</i> in <i>leopard</i>, by <i>ay</i> in <i>says</i>, by -<i>ai</i> in <i>said</i>, and by <i>a</i> in <i>many</i>.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, as a result of the change in the values of English vowel -sounds, our vowel notation is no longer accurate. We use the character -<i>a</i> to indicate to the eye the vowel quality in <i>mate</i>, -<i>sate</i>, <i>rate</i>, <i>date</i>, etc., where the sound value, -far from being of an <i>a</i> quality, is really a long phonetic -<i>e</i>. The truth is, all the English vowels have undergone a -radical alteration from their primitive values which they had in the -early history of our speech, having passed through different stages -in the successive periods. It is an interesting chapter in English -phonology to trace the tortuous course of a given sound, say <i>a</i>, -through its various mutations from the Anglo-Saxon period down to the -present time. Our vowels, especially, have changed and interchanged -to an extent which is simply astonishing. The average scholar who has -not made a special study of our English language has absolutely no -conception of the radical nature and vast extent of the change and -development<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span> of English sounds. Take as an illustration our vowel -<i>e</i>. The early English phonetic <i>e</i> passed through several -stages of development and about the seventeenth century came to have -the value of a genuine long <i>i</i>, as in <i>ear</i>, <i>hear</i>, -<i>year</i>, etc. Later, in the nineteenth century, this same sound -developed into a diphthong which is its present phonetic value. Of -course we speak now of the sound of this vowel, not of the symbol which -we employ to represent it to the eye in writing. That is another story, -and it illustrates the bungling work of our early English printers. -In early times there were several characters in use to represent the -vowel, <i>e</i>, to wit, <i>e</i>, <i>ee</i>, <i>eo</i>, <i>ea</i>, -and <i>ae</i>. After the printing press was set up in England, for -convenience and simplicity, <i>eo</i> and <i>ae</i> were not much -employed. But <i>e</i>, <i>ee</i>, and <i>ea</i> came into general -favor, and were established by custom to indicate the vowel <i>e</i> -to the eye. However, these symbols were not consistently used in the -beginning by the printers, and hence the present confusion in writing. -Our consonantal notation shows evidence of as flagrant abuse of symbols -and of glaring inaccuracy. Numerous examples might be cited to prove -that errors on the part of our early scribes and printers have been -stereotyped in our orthography and perpetuated to the present day.</p> - -<p>But not all the inconsistencies in our spelling have sprung from -the careless work of the early printers. Some are the result of -our etymological spelling. For instance, the sound of <i>s</i> in -<i>sure</i> we represent by the symbol <i>ti</i> in <i>motion</i>, by -<i>sci</i> in <i>conscience</i>, by <i>ci</i> in <i>suspicion</i>, by -<i>xi</i> in <i>anxious</i>, by <i>ce</i> in <i>ocean</i>, and by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span> -<i>sh</i> in <i>shepherd</i>. It is obviously not fair to charge such -an inconsistency as this to the sins of our erring early printers. -Still, the early English printers have enough to answer for in -corrupting the orthography of our language. They were grossly careless -and indifferent, and showed but slight regard for the propriety of -English orthography. We are not at all surprised to learn, in view -of the gross errors they committed, that they were, for the most -part, foreigners—Germans and Dutchmen—who did not use English as -their vernacular and who did not, for that reason, know the language -thoroughly. “As foreigners,” comments Professor Lounsbury, “they had -little or no knowledge of the proper spelling of our tongue”; and -he adds that “in the general license that then prevailed they could -venture to disregard where they did not care to understand.” The -result was the printing press brought chaos into English orthography -in the multitude of books which it sent broadcast over the land. -Some of the errors, it is true, were corrected subsequently, at the -beginning of the eighteenth century, when an effort was made to reform -English orthography and adjust it anew to the pronunciation. But many -of the incorrect spellings which had meanwhile crept in through the -introduction of printing were too thoroughly established by usage to -be eradicated. They continue still in English orthography as a lasting -monument alike to the crass ignorance and negligence of our early -printers and to the arrant pedantry of our early proof readers. Thus -our English orthography now in its crystallized state preserves those -glaring defects<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span> as the amber the insects which, entangled in the -liquid, are encased for ever.</p> - -<p>It must not be inferred, however, that as soon as Caxton set up his -press, English spelling was immediately stereotyped and fixed for all -time. It required fully two, if not three, centuries, according to -Ellis, for the picturesque diversity and latitude permitted the early -scribes to be reduced to the dull, rigid uniformity now established by -convention. Experiment after experiment was made by the typographers -whose constant and ultimate aim was simplicity. The last radical -change was effected by the seventeenth century when the spellings -<i>ee</i>, <i>oo</i>, and <i>oa</i> were adopted by the printers. Even -then a fierce struggle in orthography was waged, as, for example, that -between <i>sope</i> and <i>soap</i>, until the conventional spelling -at last triumphed. In the seventeenth century the writing <i>ie</i> -for long <i>e</i> as in <i>brief</i>, <i>believe</i>, <i>friend</i>, -<i>chief</i>, and the like, was finally established after a long and -doubtful contest. In early times the spelling vacillated between -<i>frend</i> and <i>freend</i>, <i>chef</i>, <i>cheef</i>, and -<i>chefe</i>; and a scribe could take his choice. But of course the -printing press sounded the knell of this orthographic liberty of the -individual, and one must spell now according to convention. And if one -does not know what this is, he must consult the dictionary.</p> - -<p>The seventeenth century witnessed many important, yea, revolutionary, -changes in our speech as a result of the social upheaval incident -to the civil war. But there was very slight recognition of these in -the contemporary orthography. The printers refused to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span> alter the -conventional orthography to suit the modifications in the spoken -speech, and they threw the weight of all their mighty influence in -favor of the traditional spelling and against any sweeping reform. They -prevailed; and from that time down to the present they have resolutely -discouraged any attempt at extensive revision of our traditional -orthography. Hence our historic orthography with its teeming -inconsistencies and absurdities has now come to be regarded with a -feeling of reverence; and we naturally recoil from any far-reaching -reform of it as we would from laying violent hands upon an heirloom -which has passed down to us through many generations. We have become -accustomed to associate a certain spelling with a certain word, and we -do not desire to have this association broken up. We therefore feel -like registering a strong and vigorous protest against any proposed -reform of a sweeping nature which would disturb our present English -orthography, however illogical, archaic, and arbitrary.</p> - -<p>To be sure, some of our lexicographers have ventured to introduce -a revised spelling here and there. <abbr title="doctor">Dr.</abbr> Johnson essayed this in -his epoch-making dictionary, published about the middle of the -eighteenth century. Indeed, he foisted not a few absurd and arbitrary -orthographies into our language, which have contributed to bring our -spelling into disrepute with those who clamor for “fonetic reform.” -Let us note some of these. Johnson threw the weight of his authority -in favor of <i>comptroller</i> against the older <i>controller</i>, -although he gave both a place in his dictionary.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span> He likewise harbored -<i>foreign</i> and <i>sovereign</i> in his dictionary, leaving the -older <i>forrain</i> and <i>sovran</i> to shift for themselves. He -adopted <i>debt</i> and <i>doubt</i> with the epenthetic <i>b</i>, to -the exclusion of the older and correct <i>dett</i> and <i>dout</i>. He -lent the weight of his influence to establish a misleading and useless -<i>s</i> in <i>island</i>, which used to be written <i>iland</i>. But -perhaps he felt that the word was too closely associated in the popular -mind with <i>isle</i> for <i>iland</i> to prevail. On the other hand, -he retained the old spelling <i>ile</i>, which we have discarded for -the etymological <i>aisle</i>, adding that <i>isle</i> was in his -judgment a corrupt writing for <i>aile</i>, then also current. His -uncertainty as to the etymology of the early English <i>agast</i> -led him to write it also <i>aghast</i>, which has since triumphed -over its quondam rival. He gives the precedence to <i>delight</i>, -to the utter defeat of <i>delite</i>, its erstwhile competitor for -popular favor. He rejected the simpler spelling <i>ake</i> for the -less familiar <i>ache</i>, out of deference to its Greek origin, yet -he endeavored to preserve a useless <i>k</i> in <i>almanack</i> and -<i>musick</i> and similar words. He made a distinction without a -difference in his spelling of the final syllables of such words as -<i>accede</i>, <i>exceed</i>, <i>precede</i>, and <i>proceed</i>. But -it is idle at this distant day to arraign <abbr title="doctor">Dr.</abbr> Johnson on the score -of his spelling. Let us therefore dismiss the indictment against his -arbitrary orthography. Some of our present authorities on English -spelling are not entirely free from reproach in this particular. The -truth is, even yet our English dictionaries are not a unit as to -approved spelling. We have not yet attained to absolute uniformity<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span> -in the matter of our orthography. For, according to Ellis, there are -still well-nigh twenty-five hundred words in the English language the -spelling of which is unsettled and indeterminate. But we experience no -serious inconvenience as a result, even if we have no preference as to -what dictionary we should follow as a guide. In fact, any dictionary -gives us a choice between <i>worshipped</i> and <i>worshiped</i>, -<i>traveller</i> and <i>traveler</i>, <i>center</i> and <i>centre</i>, -and similar words, in the case of which usage still wavers and is -divided almost equally. Some excellent authorities still cling -to the etymological spelling of words of classic origin, such as -<i>hæmorrhage</i>, <i>diarrhœa</i>, <i>æsthetics</i>, <i>œconomics</i>, -and <i>æstivate</i>, to mention only a few of a large class the -spelling of which vacillates. Others, again, sanction this spelling, -but throw the weight of their influence on the side of the simpler -form. This simply proves that there is some degree of variation even -in our accepted orthography. After all there is no fixed standard of -English orthography, just as there is no absolute standard of English -pronunciation. And yet there is a narrower margin of variation in our -accepted orthography than there is in our received pronunciation.</p> - -<p>The movement for the reform of English spelling is beginning to -engage the attention of the public. The Simplified Spelling Board has -already entered upon a campaign which holds out some hope of success. -It remains to be seen what practical results will be accomplished. -Scholars of acknowledged eminence are lending the influence of their -authority to the movement. But there is a mighty wall of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span> bigoted -conservatism, to be battered down before a movement so sweeping in -its aim and scope as “spelling reform” can make much headway. The -history of all similar attempts in the past is not such as to hold out -great promise to the present reformers or inspire them with unbounded -confidence. Still, intelligent, well-directed and untiring effort -ought certainly to be rewarded with a reasonable degree of success, -and surely there can be no question that there is room for improvement -in our English spelling. If we had such an institution as the French -Academy, no doubt the problem would be simplified. The outcome of the -present campaign for the revision of our English spelling will be -awaited with no little interest.</p> - - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> See <abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 219.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> <abbr title="volume">Vol.</abbr> I, <abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 22.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> See <a href="#AUTHORITY_IN_ENGLISH_PRONUNCIATION">Authority in English Pronunciation</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> Early English Pronunciation, I, <abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 26.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> See <a href="#A_QUESTION_OF_PREFERENCE_IN_ENGLISH_SPELLING">A Question of Preference in English Spelling</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> See <a href="#BRITICISMS_VERSUS_AMERICANISMS">Briticisms vs. Americanisms</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> Professor T. R. Lounsbury, History of the English -Language. <abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 267.</p> - -</div> -</div> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="A_QUESTION_OF_PREFERENCE_IN_ENGLISH_SPELLING">A QUESTION OF PREFERENCE IN ENGLISH SPELLING.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>We little think when we read or write that the words we employ are not -precisely the same as those which have been in use in our mother-tongue -from time immemorial. We are born into the language, so to say, and -the words of our vocabulary we regard as part and parcel of our rich -heritage of American liberty. Yet even the words of our English -speech, like many of the institutions and customs of our Anglo-Saxon -civilization, have a long history back of them, showing traces here -and there of the various stages of development they have passed -through. The words we use to-day are not identical in form or meaning -with those employed by our forebears of the generation of Chaucer or -even of the generation of Shakespeare. The forms of our English words -have undergone considerable change since that remote period in the -development of our mother-tongue. English spelling is far different -from what it was in Alfred’s, or Chaucer’s time.</p> - -<p>Before the invention of printing, those who spoke and wrote the English -language seem to have been at liberty to spell as they chose. Their -mental composure was not disturbed by the annoying suspicion that their -spelling was not according to the norm<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span> prescribed by the dictionary. -In those good old days there was no acknowledged criterion such as -the “Century,” or “Webster,” or “Worcester”; and writers had no final -appeal in the matter of orthography as present-day writers have. Since -there was no standard authority on orthography to which all polite -society had to conform, the authors of the thirteenth and fourteenth -centuries were untrammeled by tradition and were free to spell as they -pleased. Every writer was a law unto himself and followed the dictates -of his own orthographical conscience, with no dictionary to molest -or make him afraid. We find an allusion to this delightful sense of -freedom in the comment which a well-known American humorist made upon -Chaucer, that well of English undefiled from which so many modern -writers have drunk copious draughts of inspiration. “Chaucer,” said he -quaintly, “may have been a fine poet, but he was a —— poor speller.”</p> - -<p>The diffusion of the art of printing and the consequent necessity -for a uniform orthography gradually curtailed this liberty, and then -the day of the dictionary dawned. The dictionary is a democratic -invention called into being by the rise of the great middle class of -society, which desired to become familiar with the practises of polite -circles. Lexicographers came forward to supply the desired information. -Authors not “to the mannor born,” and therefore unacquainted with -courtly usage, when moved to write, felt that they must conform to -the standards set up by the lexicographers, who claimed to give the -received usage, the <i>jus et norma scribendi</i>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span> Before the epoch -of dictionaries it appears not to have made the slightest difference -whether a writer spelled the word <i>recede</i>, for example, -according to the present accepted orthography, or whether he spelled -it <i>receed</i>, <i>receede</i>, <i>recede</i> or <i>recead</i>, all -of which forms are found in manuscripts of a few centuries ago. Some -of these orthographic variations lingered into the eighteenth century, -though English spelling had probably become stereotyped at least a -century before this date. Yet the establishment of the spelling was -naturally a gradual process, and some words vacillated a long time -and never really became fixed. Of this more anon. Proper names showed -considerable latitude of spelling. Men of the eminence of Spenser, rare -Ben Jonson and Shakespeare, for example, are said to have had no fixed -practise of spelling their names, but wrote them in a variety of ways.</p> - -<p>The lack of a standard authority of orthography necessarily gave rise -to much confusion and disorder in English spelling. This confusion is -reflected even yet in the present chaotic and unphonetic spelling of -our language. Few tongues are more unphonetic than the English. This -fact is recognized and efforts have been made to bring our spelling -into closer conformity with our pronunciation. Philological societies -on both sides of the Atlantic have been trying for the last quarter -of a century, at least, to reform English spelling; but only meager -success has been achieved thus far.</p> - -<p>The proposed reforms have been of two kinds, and they have varying -aims. One recommended by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span> extreme phonetists, is a reform which -contemplates a revision and enlargement of our alphabet. This would -result in a radical transformation of our written speech, and chiefly -for this reason it has found few ardent advocates. It may be briefly -described as a reform of the language. The other reform is less -revolutionary and contemplates mainly a simplification of our present -spelling, such as the omission of silent letters, the substitution of -“f” for “ph” as in <i>phonetics</i> (fonetics) and of “t” for final -“d” as in <i>equipped</i> (equipt) and similar emendations. Of the -two kinds of reform the latter has, manifestly, more to commend it -to popular favor. This kind of reform may be termed a reform in the -language.</p> - -<p>The public concedes the unphonetic character of English orthography, -but the conservatism of the Anglo-Saxon race is so binding that the -people are slow to adopt even the slightest recommendations of the -philological societies. A few American journals have had the courage -to adopt certain emended spellings, such as <i>thru</i> (through), -<i>tho</i> (though), <i>catalog</i> (catalogue) and the like, but the -majority of our periodicals show by their practise very meager approval -of spelling-reform. No publisher, so far as known to the writer, has -ventured as yet to use the emended spelling in a book issued by his -firm. Yet all admit the need of spelling-reform and believe that, if -adopted, it would save the coming generation a vast deal of humdrum -work in acquiring an accurate knowledge of English orthography.</p> - -<p>We Americans, however, with our characteristic spirit of independence -have made bold to break<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span> away from British tradition and custom in -the writing of certain English words and have introduced a few minor -reforms in our spelling. But the English people have not followed -our lead in this matter, being content to allow our adopted American -spelling, together with our distinctive pronunciation, serve as an -earmark to distinguish American from British English. It is the -practise of some reputable British journals to disparage our spelling, -wherever it makes a departure from English traditions, and to refer to -it by way of reproach as “American spelling.” Some few years ago the -<i><abbr title="saint">St.</abbr> James Gazette</i>, intending to express its disapproval of our -spelling, deprecatingly remarked that “already newspapers in London -are habitually using the ugliest forms of American spelling and those -silly eccentricities do not make the slightest difference in their -circulation.” Viewed in the light of subsequent events, perhaps this -ought to be considered as the forerunner of “the American invasion.”</p> - -<p>As every one knows who has visited the mother country, there is a -perceptible difference not only in the spelling, but also in the -pronunciation, between American English and British English. Of -course the language is the same in America as in England; and yet -there are some appreciable minor points of difference. For example, -the Englishman gives the broad sound to the vowel <i>a</i> as in -<i>father</i>, when it is followed by such a combination of consonants -as in the words <i>ask</i>, <i>fast</i>, <i>dance</i>, <i>can’t</i>, -<i>answer</i>, <i>after</i> and the like. In America, on the other -hand, while this pronunciation is heard in some circles, it is clearly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span> -not the ordinary pronunciation and is not general, as in England. -There is also a noticeable difference in the pronunciation of long -<i>o</i>, the Englishman giving the vowel a distinctive utterance -quite unlike that ordinarily heard in America. The pronunciation -of the word <i>been</i> is a shibboleth by which a man of British -nationality may be almost unfailingly distinguished. The native -Englishman pronounces the word so as to rhyme with <i>seen</i>, never -<i>bin</i>. In addition to these points of pronunciation there are -certain locutions which never fail to betray an Englishman. The English -call an elevator <i>a lift</i>, overshoes <i>galoshes</i>, napkins -<i>serviettes</i>, candy <i>sweets</i>. In England a baby-carriage is -called a <i>perambulator</i>, which is generally abridged “<i>pram</i>” -merely; a lamp-post is known as <i>lamp-pillar</i> and a letter-box -as a <i>pillar-box</i>. There no one would ask at a store for a -wash-bowl and pitcher, however much he might need these useful -household articles, but he would call at the shop for a <i>jug</i> -and <i>basin</i>. An American in London must not say street car, but -<i>tram</i> or <i>road car</i>; not engine (which is pronounced injin), -but <i>locomotive-engine</i>; not engineer, but <i>engine-driver</i>. -In England many ordinary household articles are known by names as -different from those in our country as if the language there were -altogether a foreign tongue. Small wonder, then, that a keen-witted -American maid remarked, <i>à propos</i> of the difference between -British English and American English, that London was a delightful -place if you only knew the language.</p> - -<p>Nowhere is the difference between American English and British English -more marked and interesting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span> than in the varying practise of spelling -on both sides of the Atlantic. Let us note some of the chief points of -variation.</p> - -<p>Our British cousins assume an exasperating air of superiority when -they mention the matter of our spelling and, as self-appointed -conservators of the language, point out what they are pleased -to style the offensive eccentricities of American spelling. The -British journals ever and anon draw attention to our manner of -writing such words as <i>favor</i>, <i>honor</i>, <i>center</i>, -<i>program</i>, <i>almanac</i>, <i>tire</i>, <i>curb</i>, <i>check</i> -and <i>criticize</i> and the like, which they spell <i>favour</i>, -<i>honour</i>, <i>centre</i>, <i>programme</i>, <i>almanack</i>, -<i>tyre</i>, <i>kerb</i>, <i>cheque</i> and <i>criticise</i>. Now, in -the case of most of these words, we submit that the American spelling -is nearer the historical spelling, simpler and more logical than the -British method. As for the words typified by <i>honor</i>, our method -is simpler and nearer to the ultimate etymology. These words, it hardly -need be observed, are borrowed from the Latin through the French. The -British maintain that for this reason the spelling ought to conform -to the French fashion. But they overlook the fact that these words -have not always been written in English according to the French manner -of writing. <abbr title="doctor">Dr.</abbr> Johnson, the eminent lexicographer of the eighteenth -century, wrote <i>honor</i> beside <i>honour</i>, <i>neighbor</i> -beside <i>neighbour</i>, <i>harbor</i> beside <i>harbour</i> and the -like. Indeed, the great Cham allowed himself considerable latitude in -the matter of English orthography. Moreover, the Norman-French forms -of these words were written in a variety of ways, as <i>our</i>, -<i>eur</i>, <i>ur</i>, and also <i>or</i>. Even<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span> on the historical -ground, therefore, there is not lacking some authority for the American -spelling. If the English were consistent, they would be forced by -the logic of their argument to write uniformly <i>governour</i>, -<i>errour</i>, <i>emperour</i>, <i>oratour</i>, <i>horrour</i> and -<i>dolour</i> as well as <i>honour</i> and <i>favour</i>. But practise -shows their glaring lack of consistency, since they do not spell these -words ordinarily with <i>u</i>. It ought not to be regarded as a -reproach upon American spelling, because in our desire for simplicity -and uniformity we have rejected the <i>u</i> in this entire class of -words like <i>honor</i>, thus making the spelling more in keeping -with the Latin derivation. We can at least lay claim to simplicity -and consistency. If we are provincial, we can not be charged with -arbitrariness in our spelling.</p> - -<p>As for the writing of <i>center</i>, <i>meter</i>, <i>meager</i> -and words of this kind, the American method has as much history and -logic in its favor as the British spelling has. Analogy, too, if -that may be cited as an argument, supports our spelling, for we all -write <i>perimeter</i>, <i>diameter</i>, never otherwise, whether we -be American or English. The word <i>center</i>, according to Lowell, -who was no mean authority on matters pertaining to our speech, “is -no Americanism; it entered the language in that shape and kept it at -least as late as Defoe.” “In the sixteenth and in the first half of -the seventeenth century,” declares Professor Lounsbury, in reference -to the spelling of <i>center</i> and similar words, “while both -ways of writing these words existed side by side, the termination -<i>er</i> is far more common than <i>re</i>. The first complete -edition of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span> Shakespeare’s plays was published in 1624. In that work -<i>sepulcher</i> occurs thirteen times; it is spelled eleven times -with <i>er</i>. <i>Scepter</i> occurs thirty-seven times; it is not -once spelled with <i>re</i>, but always with <i>er</i>. <i>Center</i> -occurs twelve times, and in nine instances out of the twelve it -ends in <i>er</i>.” John Bellows, in the preface to his excellent -French-English and English-French pocket dictionary, states that “the -Act of Parliament legalizing the use of the metric system in this -country [England] gives the words meter, liter, gram, etc., spelt on -the American plan.” It is evident, then, that our way of writing these -words is quite as logical and as much warranted by the history of our -tongue as the British spelling.</p> - -<p>The American orthography is clearly in advance of the British in the -word <i>almanac</i>. This word is not rightly entitled to the final -<i>k</i>, as the English spell it. This superfluous letter is a mere -survival from a former way of writing, no longer in vogue. It has been -rejected in <i>music</i>, <i>public</i>, <i>optic</i> and similar words -which are written alike on both sides of the Atlantic. In Johnson’s -dictionary and also in our King James’s version of the Scriptures the -old spelling generally occurs. Indeed, Johnson appended the excrescent -<i>k</i> to well-nigh all words of this class. Strange to say, there is -one word of this class which preserves the <i>k</i> even in American -English, and that is <i>hammock</i>. This is but an exception which -goes to prove that even American English with its revised orthography -is still far from being phonetic.</p> - -<p>In regard to words ending in <i>ize</i>, usage in Great Britain has -established the writing <i>ise</i>, as in <i>civilise</i>.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span> However, -new formations even there are usually made to terminate in <i>ize</i>, -which is generally adopted in America. Yet American spelling sometimes -exhibits <i>ise</i>, after the English fashion. The British writing -is derived from the French, whereas the American harks back to -the original Greek suffix. The British spelling of <i>tyre</i>, -<i>kerb</i>, <i>programme</i> and <i>cheque</i> perhaps has as much to -commend it as the American <i>tire</i>, <i>curb</i>, <i>program</i> and -<i>check</i>. Usage in America varies in the case of <i>program</i>, -the more conservative still clinging to <i>programme</i>. <i>Tyre</i> -and <i>kerb</i> are but little employed here. These words are -merely variant forms which British usage has adopted. The spelling -<i>cheque</i>, in general use in Great Britain for our bank check, has -resulted through the influence of the word <i>exchequer</i> with which -it is connected.</p> - -<p>The usual American spelling of <i>wagon</i> is held up to public -obloquy by British journalists, who regard <i>waggon</i> as the -orthodox orthography. Skeat, who gives both forms in his etymological -dictionary, asserts that the doubling of the <i>g</i> is simply a -device to show that the preceding vowel is short. In the early history -of the language when the etymological spelling was in vogue, pedants -had recourse to this method of changing the form of a word to make it -phonetic, as they claimed. In point of fact, by their practise they -made the language far less phonetic. Spenser and other early English -authors write the word after the American fashion. Horace Greeley once -made a departure from our American usage and wrote <i>waggon</i>, -saying by way of apology, when<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span> his attention was called to it, that -“they used to build wagons heavier in the good old times when he -learned to spell.”</p> - -<p>It is not to be supposed for a moment, however, that our utilitarian -disregard of tradition is so strong as to have eliminated all useless -letters in our American spelling. There is many a word in which an -epenthetic letter is still retained merely because the traditional -spelling shows it. <i>Sovereign</i>, <i>comptroller</i>, <i>island</i> -and <i>rhyme</i> may be cited as examples in point. Perhaps it ought to -be added that the emended spelling <i>rime</i> for <i>rhyme</i> appears -to be meeting with favor in certain philological circles.</p> - -<p>There is one class of words which does not exhibit a uniform -method of writing, either in Great Britain or in America. This -class is typified by the words <i>traveler</i>, <i>counselor</i>, -<i>worshiper</i> and the like. It will be readily seen that these -words are all derivatives, formed from the primary by the addition of -a suffix; and the writing vacillates between a single and a double -consonant preceding the suffix. According to the well-known principle -of English orthography, these words are not entitled to a double -consonant, and therefore should never be written <i>traveller</i>, -<i>counsellor</i> and <i>worshipper</i>. The rule is, if the final -syllable of a word ending in a single consonant and preceded by a short -vowel is accented, the final consonant, on the addition of a suffix -beginning with a vowel, is doubled; but never otherwise. Thus we write -<i>offered</i>, <i>deviled</i> and the like, but <i>referred</i>, -<i>transferred</i> and <i>jammed</i>. Hence the orthodox spelling -should be <i>traveler</i>, <i>counselor</i>, <i>worshiper</i>, -<i>unrivaled</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span> and the like. But practise shows that either spelling -is regarded as correct on both sides of the Atlantic. These words are -survivals from a former period in the history of the language when -more latitude was allowed in English orthography and there was no -hard and fast line drawn, no fixed standard. The proper historical -spelling, it is interesting to note, is with one consonant, as in -<i>counselor</i> derived ultimately from the Latin <i>consilarius</i>. -While either spelling is considered correct, British usage favors -the double consonant (<i>counsellor</i>) and American the single -(<i>counselor</i>). Here again as elsewhere American spelling inclines -to simplification and would make these words conform to the general -rule of English orthography as laid down above. Strange to say, British -usage shows one exception in the word <i>paralleled</i>, which it has -adopted (and not <i>parallelled</i>). Here we find another instance of -the striking inconsistency of British orthography. It may be a shocking -thing to say, but investigation will prove it true, that if those -British critics who censure our spelling so severely, as offending -their esthetic sense, were more familiar with the history of the -language, they would, without doubt, have far less comment to make upon -the so-called eccentricities of American spelling.</p> - -<p>It remains to notice some apparent exceptions to the rule of English -orthography stated above. Noteworthy among these are the words -<i>handicapped</i> and <i>kidnapped</i>, which are written alike in -British and American English. But they can be explained and are only -apparent exceptions. A moment’s reflection<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span> is sufficient to convince -one that <i>handicap</i> and <i>kidnap</i> are not simple words, but -in reality compounds in which the last element has not completely -lost its identity in combination. Because of the consciousness of the -independent words <i>cap</i> and <i>nap</i> in these compounds, they -conform to the rule as a matter of fact and therefore double the final -consonant, on the addition of a suffix beginning with a vowel. Hence, -if they are exceptions, they must be considered exceptions which prove -the rule.</p> - -<p>The few points we have drawn attention to in this imperfect little -sketch are enough to show how unphonetic and illogical is our English -spelling. Many of the eccentricities of our orthography, according -to Skeat, have resulted from the futile attempts of pedants in the -sixteenth century to make English spelling etymological and to make it -conform to the classics, from which a vast multitude of words had been -introduced into our speech. These conscious attempts at etymological -spelling gave rise to endless confusion and disorder. But other causes, -such as analogy and mere caprice, also contributed to this end. Thus -we are to explain the writing of the word <i>female</i>, for example. -This word, coming from the Latin <i>femella</i> through the French -<i>femelle</i> into English, was originally written <i>femelle</i> and -would probably have retained this form to the present time. But because -of a fancied connection with the word <i>male</i>, the spelling was -changed to <i>female</i>. In a similar manner is to be explained the -spelling of numerous other words in our language which seem perfectly -natural and logical on first blush.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="AUTHORITY_IN_ENGLISH_PRONUNCIATION">AUTHORITY IN ENGLISH PRONUNCIATION.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>For wellnigh two centuries a popular belief has prevailed throughout -the English-speaking world that there should be a standard of -pronunciation, which should be followed in all those countries where -English is the native tongue. Many people, holding this view, assume -that some such norm is unconsciously observed by men of education -and culture, who, because of their influence and rank, are generally -conceded the right to establish the customs of speech. It is but -natural, therefore, that men with greater or less claim to culture -and education should take it upon themselves from time to time to -determine the supposed standard of pronunciation. Thus as far back as -the beginning of the eighteenth century we find that the orthoepists -of that period undertook to ascertain and record the pronunciation of -English as practised in polite society.</p> - -<p>Now, the early orthoepists discovered, apparently to their -astonishment, that English pronunciation, even in the most cultured -circles, far from being fixed by ironclad rules, was quite an elastic -thing, allowing considerable latitude. Indeed, two centuries ago -pronunciation in English, as reflected by the best usage, was no more -uniform than it is to-day. Then<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span> as now, men recognized no fixed and -absolute standard of English pronunciation. They followed their own -tastes and individual preferences, despite the orthoepical suggestions -and recommendations of their contemporaries. Prejudice and caprice, -too, in those days, as in the present time, were factors to be reckoned -with, so that the path of the would-be authority on pronunciation was -beset with no slight difficulty.</p> - -<p>It must not be inferred, however, that the orthoepists themselves were -a unit and in perfect harmony as to current usage. On the contrary, -they were frequently far apart in recording the pronunciation -sanctioned by the best society and differed quite as much as their -worthy successors of the present day. They sometimes indulged in -vituperation and severe censure at each others’ expense and made no -attempt to conceal their disapproval of a rival’s authority, which -they expressed in plain, vigorous Anglo-Saxon. Some of their sarcastic -remarks furnish spicy and entertaining reading to the student who is -willing to plod his way through the dreary waste of those forgotten -dust-covered tomes.</p> - -<p>The most conspicuous among the eighteenth century orthoepists were -Baily, Johnson, Buchanan, Sheridan and Walker. Some of these were -Scotch, and some Irish, and some, of course, English. Quite naturally -it struck the fancy of an Englishman as somewhat humorous, not to say -absurd, for an Irishman or a Scotchman to pose as an authority on -English pronunciation. So the damaging taunt of foreign nationality -and consequent lack of acquaintance<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span> with English usage was flaunted -in the face of Buchanan and Sheridan, natives of Scotland and Ireland, -respectively.</p> - -<p>When Doctor Johnson was informed of Sheridan’s plan of producing an -English dictionary that was designed to indicate the pronunciation of -each word, he ridiculed the idea of an Irishman’s presuming to teach -Englishmen how to speak their native language as utterly absurd. -“Why, Sir,” growled the autocrat of eighteenth century literature, -“my dictionary shows you the accent of words, if you can but remember -them.” Then on being reminded that his dictionary does not give -the pronunciation of the vowels, “Why, Sir,” continued he, in his -characteristic surly manner, “consider how much easier it is to learn -a language by the ear than by any marks. Sheridan’s dictionary may do -very well; but you can not always carry it about with you; and when -you want the word, you have not the dictionary. It is like the man -who has a sword that will not draw. It is an admirable sword, to be -sure; but while your enemy is cutting your throat, you are unable to -use it. Besides, Sir, what entitles Sheridan to fix the pronunciation -of English? He has, in the first place, the disadvantage of being an -Irishman; and if he says he will fix it after the example of the best -company, why they differ among themselves. I remember an instance: when -I published the plan of my dictionary, Lord Chesterfield told me that -the word <i>great</i> should be pronounced to rhyme to <i>state</i>; -and Sir William Yonge sent me word that it should be pronounced so as -to rhyme to <i>seat</i>, and that none<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span> but Irishmen would pronounce it -<i>grait</i>. Now, here were two men of the highest rank, the one the -best speaker in the House of Lords, the other the best speaker in the -House of Commons, differing entirely.”</p> - -<p>As this quotation shows clearly and forcibly, even the usage of the -very best speakers in England in the eighteenth century was far from -uniform and harmonious, as has been intimated in the opening paragraph. -Moreover, it is evident from the striking illustration Johnson uses -that English pronunciation must have varied much more two centuries -ago than it does to-day; for no two speakers of national reputation, -such as the leaders of the two chambers of Parliament presumably must -have been, would differ so radically at the present time in their -pronunciation. The truth is, in those good old days men paid but -little attention either to pronunciation or to spelling. It is a fact -not so widely known as it deserves to be, that English orthography -two centuries ago was just emerging from a state of confusion and -chaos; and law and order were then for the first time beginning to -appear. The result is the conventional spelling which only since the -eighteenth century has been stereotyped in the form now so familiar -to all educated people. And not even yet, as we know, has English -orthography had its perfect work. As late as Doctor Johnson’s time, -the spelling of many English words had not yet been crystallized, and -not a few words could be spelled in two distinct ways, either of which -was recognized as correct. For instance, the spelling of <i>soap</i>, -<i>cloak</i>, <i>choke</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span> and <i>fuel</i>, to select only a few -examples, as recorded in his dictionary, vacillated between “sope,” -“cloke,” “choak,” “fewel” and the present accepted spelling of these -words. These variant spellings, long since rejected, now seem to us -either attempts at phonetic spelling or quaint and curious imitations -of Chaucerian orthography. Having discussed elsewhere<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> the subject of -English spelling, I dismiss the matter here with this passing reference.</p> - -<p>The crystallized form of English spelling which has been brought about -mainly through the influence of the printing-press in the last few -centuries we accept as a matter of course, little thinking of the -difficulties innumerable which the printer and the “gentle” reader -encountered three centuries ago. But the very existence of a standard -orthography, as a moment’s reflection will show, has necessitated as -its indispensable adjunct the pronouncing dictionary.</p> - -<p>The pronouncing dictionary, therefore, is a modern production; it was -hardly known before the first quarter of the eighteenth century. It is -held by some scholars, notably Professor Lounsbury in his “Standard of -Pronunciation in English,” that the pronouncing dictionary was called -into existence by the desire on the part of the imperfectly educated -middle class to know what to say and how to say it. This desire became -stronger and stronger as the members of that growing class of England’s -population rose by degrees into social prominence. Possessing little -culture and few social advantages, and lacking<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span> confidence in their -meager training, such people were not willing to exercise the right of -private judgment, and consequently they sought out an authority and -guide. They were eager to learn the modes of speech which obtained in -the most highly cultured circles, the <i>jus et norma loquendi</i> of -the nobility. It was natural therefore, since the occasion appeared to -demand it, that self-appointed guides should come forward and offer -to conduct the multitudes of social pariahs through the wilderness of -orthoepical embarrassment into the Canaan of polite usage. Such was -probably the origin of the pronouncing dictionary.</p> - -<p>It will prove interesting to consider some of the pronunciations -authorized by the early orthoepists as reflecting contemporary usage. -How unlike current usage many of those early pronunciations are, the -reader will see for himself. But first a word as to the orthoepists -themselves.</p> - -<p>The earliest of the eighteenth century orthoepists is Baily. His -dictionary enjoyed the enviable distinction of being the first -authority on English pronunciation during the first half of the -eighteenth century. But Baily’s supremacy was eclipsed by Johnson, -whose epoch-marking dictionary appeared in 1755. Johnson claimed to -record the most approved method of English orthoepy, and his prestige -as a man of letters contributed speedily to establish his dictionary as -the ultimate authority on English pronunciation. It is to be observed, -however, that Johnson only indicated the syllable on which the accent -falls. This left much to be desired as a pronouncing dictionary. So, in -1766, Buchanan, a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span> Scotchman, gave to the world his dictionary which -challenged Johnson’s pre-eminence. A few years later, in 1780, to be -accurate, Sheridan published his dictionary. Sheridan was an Irishman -by birth, as has been said, the son of the famous British orator and -dramatist, Richard Brinsley Sheridan, whose plays are so favorably -known to us through <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Jefferson’s interpretation. Sheridan’s -nationality was used by his competitors to prejudice the public -against his dictionary and to discount it as an authority on English -pronunciation. Still Sheridan enjoyed a considerable vogue.</p> - -<p>In 1791 Walker published his dictionary. The reputation of this work, -in a revised form, extended far into the last century, so we are -informed by the late <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Ellis in his authoritative work on English -pronunciation. Walker, like Sheridan, was an actor, but unlike his -rival he was an Englishman by birth. He did not fail to draw attention -to the advantage this circumstance would naturally give him in the -popular estimation, in advertising the merits of his book. In his -treatment of the principles of pronunciation, however, Walker shows a -feeble grasp of his subject, and the most serious criticism upon his -book is that he was unduly influenced by the spelling in ascertaining -the pronunciation of a word. “In almost every part of his principles,” -says <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Ellis, speaking of Walker’s work, “and in his remarks upon -particular words throughout his dictionary, one will see the most -evident marks of insufficient knowledge and of that kind of pedantic -self-sufficiency which is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span> the true growth of half-enlightened -ignorance.” Such drastic criticism upon the author of a dictionary -which was esteemed the highest authority on English pronunciation -during the first half of the last century does not invite confidence -in the results of our early orthoepists. Rather it makes us feel that -none of them is perhaps entitled to credit. Probably Doctor Johnson -shared this feeling when he exclaimed in the preface to his dictionary, -<i>Quis autem custodiet ipsos custodes?</i></p> - -<p>So much for the lexicographers of the eighteenth century. Let us now -consider some of the pronunciations authorized by them, which have -long since been discarded. These will serve as illustrations to bring -home to the mind of the reader the truth that our speech is slowly but -surely and constantly changing, and that English pronunciation, unlike -English spelling, has never been stereotyped in a fast, unvarying form. -They will also show how indispensable an auxiliary to our crystallized, -conventional spelling has the pronouncing dictionary become.</p> - -<p>An interesting illustration is furnished by the word <i>asparagus</i>. -The popular pronunciation of this word in the eighteenth century was -<i>sparrow-grass</i>. This was felt by the orthoepists, however, to -be a vulgar corruption of the word, and they therefore strove with -concerted effort to stem the popular tide and to make the pronunciation -conform to abstract propriety as indicated by the spelling. Walker, -in commenting upon the pronunciation of the word, remarks, as if -apologizing for the theoretically correct form which he recommends, -that “the corruption of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span> the word into <i>sparrow-grass</i> is so -general that asparagus has an air of stiffness and pedantry.” Another -word with a no less interesting history is <i>cucumber</i>. This -word used to be generally pronounced <i>cowcumber</i>. The popular -pronunciation of this word as well as of <i>asparagus</i>, once so -universal, has survived even up to the present in the lingo of the -illiterate whites of New England and in the Negro dialect. This vulgar -pronunciation which was a thorn in the flesh to the eighteenth century -lexicographers, it is instructive to note in passing, was not the -result of mere caprice, but was warranted by an old variant spelling -of the word. This historic spelling, long since discarded altogether -by the users of English, was formerly very prevalent and in good -literary usage. Hence little wonder that the vulgar pronunciation for -a long time contested the supremacy with the mode of utterance now -universally accepted. Even so high an authority as <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Pepys refers in -his “Diary” to a certain man as “dead of eating cowcumbers.” It was -not till wellnigh the middle of the last century that the orthoepists -Knowles and Smart ventured to denounce <i>cowcumber</i> along with -<i>sparrow-grass</i> as vulgar and therefore tabooed in polite circles.</p> - -<p>It is a well-established fact in the history of English pronunciation -that in the seventeenth century and far into the following century -such words as <i>spoil</i>, <i>toil</i>, <i>boil</i>, and so on, were -pronounced, even in best usage, precisely as they are uttered to-day -in the Negro dialect and by the illiterate whites among us, that -is, just as if they were written “spile,” “tile”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span> and “bile.” This -is conclusively proved by the rhymes of Dryden and Pope.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> It is -further evident from the rhymes of the poets of the latter half of the -eighteenth century that this archaic pronunciation persisted almost -down to the beginning of the last century. This pronunciation was -regarded by the orthoepists as antiquated and vulgar, and they did not -fail to denounce it in strong terms, warning against its use. In 1773 -Kenrick records with mingled regret and disgust that it would appear -affected to pronounce such words as <i>boil</i>, <i>join</i> and many -others otherwise than as “bile” and “jine.” But toward the close of the -eighteenth century the present pronunciation began to prevail and “the -banished diphthong,” as Nares records with triumphant delight, “seemed -at length to be upon its return.” This same orthoepist informs us, and -we may well believe him, that it was the authority of the poets, who -had pilloried the offensive pronunciation in their verse, that retarded -the progress of the received sound of the diphthong which finally -triumphed.</p> - -<p>The early lexicographers were divided on the pronunciation of -<i>vase</i>. Indeed, two centuries have not sufficed to unite their -successors in perfect harmony on this question. The word to-day -vacillates between four received pronunciations. The great unwashed -pronounce <i>vase</i> to rhyme with <i>base</i> and <i>case</i>. -Some pronounce the word as if written “vaz” with “the broad a.” -Others, associating it with its French equivalent, pronounce the word -“vauze.” Others<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span> still pronounce it so as to rhyme with <i>amaze</i> -and <i>gaze</i>. Of these four pronunciations the first is the most -prevalent to-day, as it also was two centuries ago. According to the -Century Dictionary, the word was introduced into English during the -latter half of the seventeenth century, and after the analogy of -words of its class, it would naturally be pronounced so as to rhyme -with <i>case</i> and <i>base</i>. But the recency of the word and its -familiar association with art have given rise to the attempt to make -it conform to the analogy of the French pronunciation and sound it -as if written “vauze.” The early occasional spelling of the word as -<i>vause</i> doubtless contributed somewhat to the extension of this -latter pronunciation. This French pronunciation, says the Century, is -now affected by many. It is worth while to remark, however, that while -the Century recognizes the French pronunciation, it still gives the -preference to the old historic pronunciation, viz., that rhyming with -<i>case</i> and <i>base</i>.</p> - -<p>Now, in the eighteenth century some of the orthoepists favored one -pronunciation and some another. Sheridan, Scott, Kenrick, Perry and -Buchanan declared for the pronunciation rhyming with <i>case</i> and -<i>base</i>. On the other hand, Smith, Johnston and Walker expressed -themselves in favor of “vaze.” Walker says that he has uniformly heard -it so pronounced, but adds the significant remark that the word is -pronounced according to the French fashion “sometimes by people of -refinement; but this, being too refined for the general ear, is now but -seldom heard,” This French pronunciation, however strange<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span> the comment -may appear to us in view of his wide acquaintance with English usage, -the late <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> A. J. Ellis averred was the most familiar to him. So the -struggle between the several pronunciations of <i>vase</i> continues -still, and no one can say which will ultimately prevail.</p> - -<p>Another interesting illustration of vacillation of usage two -centuries ago is furnished in the pronunciation of <i>either</i> -and <i>neither</i>. Like the word <i>vase</i>, these words show -incidentally how long a time two pronunciations of the same word may -linger in good usage before either supplants the other. There is to-day -probably as much variation in the pronunciation of <i>either</i> and -<i>neither</i> as there was a century and a half ago. Early in the -eighteenth century the <i>i</i> sound was conceded by some of the -orthoepists as permissible in these words. Two authorities, Buchanan -and Johnston, declared for the new pronunciation, that is, “ither” -and “nither.” But since they were both Scotchmen, their authority was -discounted. On the other hand, Sheridan and Walker recommended the -<i>e</i> sound and used their influence to bespeak for it general -endorsement. They recognized the <i>i</i> sound, to be sure, but only -on sufferance. From that day to the present the battle has waged -more or less fiercely between the advocates of these respective -pronunciations of <i>either</i> and <i>neither</i>. Which will -ultimately prevail, it is impossible to determine. It may be said, -however, that analogy and history are on the side of the <i>e</i> -sound. Yet the <i>i</i> sound appears to be encroaching at present on -the former pronunciation. There is still another pronunciation of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span> -these words which we now rarely hear. I refer to the old dialectical -pronunciation as “ather” and “nather.” This pronunciation was current -in Doctor Johnson’s time, though it probably did not enjoy the sanction -of good usage. On being asked one day whether he regarded “ither,” or -“ether” as the proper pronunciation of <i>either</i>, the old Doctor is -said to have blurted out in his characteristic crabbed manner, “Nather, -Sir!” This pronunciation survives now only as an Irishism.</p> - -<p>Another class of former pronunciations surviving now as an Irishism, -or at best as a provincialism merely, is exemplified by such words -as <i>nature</i>, <i>creature</i> and <i>picture</i>. In Dryden’s -and Pope’s time these words were pronounced “nater,” “crater” and -“picter.”<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> These pronunciations are preserved still in the Yankee -dialect, as shown in Lowell’s inimitable Biglow Papers, and of course -they are frequently heard on Irish lips. But they long ago dropped out -of the speech of polite society. There is one notable exception found -in the word figure. The variant pronunciation of this word as “figer” -survives in standard English as a heritage from the seventeenth century.</p> - -<p>Quite as instructive an illustration of survivals in pronunciation, -is furnished by the British pronunciation of <i>clerk</i> and -<i>Derby</i>. The English, as is well known, pronounce these words as -if written “clark” and “Darby.” They used to pronounce <i>clergy</i> -with the same vowel sound, and many other words besides.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span> But it is a -significant sign of the approaching change in British usage in respect -to these words that a recent British dictionary, the New Historical, -in commenting on <i>clerk</i> admits that the American pronunciation -of this word has become somewhat frequent of late in London and -its neighborhood. (Are we to look upon this as a result of the -much-discussed American invasion?) But our British cousins are still -wedded to their Derby (Darby) and show no sign of abandoning either the -old pronunciation or the custom. Even we Americans cling tenaciously to -<i>serjeant</i> and show but little inclination to make that conform -speedily to the analogy of other words of its class and to pronounce -it in accordance with the spelling. But, no doubt, this word, also, -in the course of time, will yield to the pressure of analogy, and our -time-honored <i>serjeant</i>, with the flight of years, is destined -to be classed among those pronunciations that have lost caste. The -early orthoepists uniformly pronounced this entire class of words as -our British cousins pronounce them at the present time, that is, as -if they were written “clark,” “sarjeant” and so on. Indeed, it is the -spelling that has been the main factor in effecting the change in the -pronunciation of these words. There is a strong tendency in English to -pronounce a word as it is written, and this tendency has been asserting -itself with ever increasing force since English spelling has been -crystallized and thereby rendered less subject to preference or caprice.</p> - -<p>A constantly recurring question, which never ceased to vex the spirit -of the early orthoepists, was,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</span> where to place the accent in the -case of <i>contemplate</i>, <i>demonstrate</i>, <i>illustrate</i> -and similar words of classical origin. The question at issue here -is whether the stress shall fall upon the antepenultimate or the -penultimate. Even with all the accumulated knowledge of the centuries -we are no nearer a solution of this perplexing question than were the -Elizabethans. Shakespeare could say indifferently <i>cónfiscate</i> or -<i>confíscate</i>, <i>démonstrate</i> or <i>demónstrate</i>. Here the -battle has been waged between the scholars, on the one hand, who insist -upon strict propriety, and the uninitiated, on the other, who follow -the line of least resistance and by intuition place the accent upon -the initial syllable. As is evident at a glance, these words come to -us from the classics. The scholars therefore, somewhat pedantically, -insist upon retaining the stress on the syllable which bore it in the -original Latin or Greek. <i>Per contra</i>, the common people, who -know “little Latin and less Greek” and care not a fig for the original -accent, instinctively throw the stress upon the first syllable, in -keeping with their feeling for their mother tongue. This feeling for -the language, which the Germans call “<i>Sprachgefühl</i>,” is, after -all, a safer guide than the rules laid down by the pedants. Candor -compels us to admit that the popular tendency is more in harmony with -the genius of our vernacular. But the scholars have made a brave -fight for what we may demoniate abstract propriety, and the result, -thus far, is a drawn battle. Each side has scored some points, and -each side has had to make some concessions. Thus <i>balcony</i>, -<i>academy</i>, <i>decorous</i> and <i>metamorphosis</i>, to cite<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</span> a -few concrete examples, have finally triumphed over the earlier pedantic -pronunciations, which required the accent on the penult of these words. -<i>Horizon</i>, on the other hand, stands as a monument of a concession -to the learned, since this word in Elizabethan times had the stress -on the initial syllable, as had also the name of the month July. -Popular usage in favor of the received pronunciation of <i>auditor</i>, -<i>senator</i>, <i>victory</i>, <i>orator</i> and many similar words -has achieved a decided triumph over the early orthoepists, who, it was -very obvious, were fighting a losing battle in their efforts to retain -the classical accent.</p> - -<p>It follows that pronunciation is the resultant product of several -forces which are silently but constantly acting upon the living -language. There are, to be sure, various methods of pronunciation, -but the standard is that sanctioned by the most cultivated circles of -society. Now, it is the function of the pronouncing dictionary, and -its sole reason for existence, to determine and record the usage of -the most cultured classes. But here is where the rub comes. This is -the stumbling-block in the way of the lexicographers. It may seem, -upon first blush, that the task of the orthoepist is easy enough. But -not so in actual practice. Countless and insuperable difficulties -soon begin to loom up a little ahead in the path of the intending -orthoepist, and he finds, to his regret and his occasional disgust, -that the way he has marked out for himself is not strewn with roses. It -is an arduous undertaking which holds out but meager hope of successful -accomplishment, to make an accurate record of the pronunciation -received in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</span> any large class of society. The labor and trouble are -multiplied many times when an attempt is made to determine the best -orthoepical usage in a democracy. There is really no absolute standard -of pronunciation in English and there can not be, from the very nature -of the case, as Professor Lounsbury has clearly demonstrated in his -recent luminous book on this subject.</p> - -<p>Yet it is unquestionably true that the pronouncing dictionary is -constantly making for uniformity of pronunciation. There is far less -difference in English orthoepy at the beginning of the twentieth -century, even despite the present diversity of good usage, than there -was at the beginning of the eighteenth century. A glance at the history -of the usage, if we may trust Professor Lounsbury, an eminent authority -on English pronunciation, will readily convince the reader of this -fact. This result is the direct outgrowth of the increased facilities -for intercourse between communities, and of the gradual diffusion of -education which the last two centuries have witnessed. With the spread -of education there go along those habits of speech which are generally -recognized to be in accord with best usage and which therefore have -most to commend them to popular favor. But till men cease to exercise -the right of choice in the mode of utterance, till men prefer, for the -sake of uniformity, to say exclusively “hóstǐle” and not “hostĩle,” -“sérvǐle” and not “servle,” “rise” and not “rice,” to mention an -example of variant usage, so long will there probably be a diversity of -pronunciation and the consequent need for the pronouncing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</span> dictionary. -This consummation so devoutly to be wished we may expect at the -Greek Kalends. We may rest assured, therefore, that the pronouncing -dictionary is here to stay.</p> - -<p>Every man has his preference as to his pronouncing dictionary, which -he regards with more or less confidence and, may be, reverence, as -his final authority. To this he resorts in all orthoepical questions, -for final solution. This, of course, is a legitimate function of the -pronouncing dictionary. The fact is, the vocabulary of the average -educated man is so extremely limited and the vocabulary of the language -so extremely copious that there are thousands of words of a technical -character which even the most accomplished scholars have never once -heard uttered. The average educated man who knows that English spelling -is a very untrustworthy guide to pronunciation is perforce driven to -consult his Webster, or his Worcester, or his Standard, or mayhap his -Century. Only then can he pronounce an unfamiliar English word with any -assurance of propriety.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding the fact that every educated man has his favorite -dictionary, it is probably true that no man’s pronunciation is in -entire accord with the dictionary he habitually follows. The late -<abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Ellis gave a suggestive test which I believe has never been -successfully challenged. “I do not remember,” said he, “ever meeting -with a person of general education, or even literary habits, who -could read off, without hesitation, the whole of such a list of words -as: bourgeois, demy, actinism, velleity, batman, beaufin,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</span> brevier, -rowlock, fusil, flugleman, vase, tassel, buoy, oboe, archimandrite, -etc., and give them in each case the same pronunciation as is assigned -in any given pronouncing dictionary now in use.” Let the reader -try these test words and see whether he pronounces this short list -according to any received authority in use at the present day.</p> - -<p>It may not prove an altogether unprofitable inquiry how our pronouncing -dictionaries are made. Such an inquiry, if pursued, may teach us -somewhat of the methods of the orthoepists to ascertain good usage. -The method formerly adopted was very much after this fashion: The -lexicographer studies in his own library the pronouncing dictionary -of everybody who has taken the pains to compile one, whether he be -an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scotchman, or an American. He compares -these several dictionaries and records their variations. From these he -selects those pronunciations which, for any special reason, commend -themselves to his individual taste or judgment. These are usually such -pronunciations as he is accustomed to hear or himself to use. These are -published with the stamp of the lexicographer’s authority and approval, -and the dictionary is sent out into the world as so-and-so’s record of -the most approved usage.</p> - -<p>This was doubtless the way pronouncing dictionaries used to be -compiled. But we may believe that this method is not the course -ordinarily followed by the authors of our best modern dictionaries. -If our best standard dictionaries to-day were made in this fashion, -their authority would richly deserve to be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</span> heavily discounted for -such carelessness of method. But greater efforts are made by the most -recent orthoepists, we may believe, to determine the accepted usage -in polite society. Yet, after all, the personal equation enters as an -important factor into the compilation of every pronouncing dictionary. -The author or authors who compile the dictionary naturally follow -their own preferences and prejudices in the matter of pronunciation; -and their results, even at best, repose on very restricted and -imperfect observation. An orthoepist ought not to be cocksure and -dogmatic. Indeed, the proper attitude of the author of a dictionary -is that of the late <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Ellis. It was quite natural that a man of his -superior scholarship and rare orthoepical attainments should have been -frequently asked as to the proper pronunciation of a particular word.</p> - -<p>“It has not unfrequently happened,” observes <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Ellis in his -monumental work on “Early English Pronunciation,” in reference to his -practice, when appealed to as an authority, “It has not unfrequently -happened that the present writer has been appealed to respecting the -pronunciation of a word. He generally replies that he is accustomed -to pronounce it in such or such a way, and has often to add that he -has heard others pronounce it differently, but that he has no means of -deciding which pronunciation ought to be adopted, or even of saying -which is the more customary.”</p> - -<p>This attitude will, no doubt, commend itself to the favor of the -reflecting and judicious man much more forcibly than that spirit of -assumed infallibility<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</span> which is a sure sign, in an orthoepist, of -insufficient knowledge and lack of preparation for his work. The -business of a lexicographer is to record what good usage authorizes, -not to tell us what we shall not use. The orthoepist who goes farther, -and dogmatically asserts that a given pronunciation is correct and -another incorrect, transcends the legitimate bounds of his province. -Moreover, he arouses suspicion in the minds of the thoughtful as to -his trustworthiness as a guide in matters of pronunciation. For no -orthoepist records all the pronunciations sanctioned by good usage, -and no one therefore can affirm positively that a given pronunciation -of a word may not be warranted by reputable usage in some quarter. -Even so high an authority and careful an observer as Ellis lapsed into -error in his comment upon the pronunciation of <i>trait</i>, claiming -that the silent final <i>t</i> was an unfailing shibboleth of British -practice. As a matter of fact, the pronunciation of the final letter -of <i>trait</i>, as Professor Lounsbury has clearly shown,<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> had -been recognized by English orthoepists as allowable for more than a -century. It is manifest that one can not afford to be very positive in -English orthoepy: if he is, he will be compelled either to retract or -to qualify some of his sweeping statements.</p> - -<p>The pronouncing dictionary is, as a general rule, a good guide to -standard usage, though it can not be relied upon implicitly. When -the orthoepists are all agreed upon a particular pronunciation, one -ought to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</span> be very chary of using one’s customary or pet pronunciation -that differs. The chances are that it is not in good repute. But -when, on the contrary, the orthoepists themselves differ, one may -reasonably infer that no statement of any one of them about the proper -pronunciation of a word, however positive it may be, ought to be -recognized as a binding authority. For no pronouncing dictionary is an -absolutely final authority. Nor can it ever justly claim to be, since -the pronouncing dictionary purports to record only such pronunciations -as are sanctioned by good usage, and good usage ever varies with the -living speech, which, like all living things, is always slowly changing -from century to century. The change is sometimes so gradual that -hardly the lapse of a century will reveal it. Again, for one reason or -another, it is so rapid in development that even a generation suffices -to record it.</p> - - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> See <a href="#A_QUESTION_OF_PREFERENCE_IN_ENGLISH_SPELLING">A Question of Preference in Spelling</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> See <a href="#VULGARISMS_WITH_A_PEDIGREE">Vulgarisms With A Pedigree</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> See <a href="#VULGARISMS_WITH_A_PEDIGREE">Vulgarisms With A Pedigree</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> The Standard of Pronunciation in English, <abbr title="page">p.</abbr> 230.</p> - -</div> -</div> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="VULGARISMS_WITH_A_PEDIGREE">VULGARISMS WITH A PEDIGREE.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>Never before was there so much enthusiasm manifested in linguistic -studies as during the last quarter of a century, and even yet there -is no indication of a waning interest. Not only have languages been -studied in their relation to one another, but dialects also have come -in for their share of attention in the pursuit of these studies. -Nor has our own country been backward in contributing, through its -dialectal and various philological associations, its quota to the -science of philology. Authors in different parts of the country have -written long and (it must be confessed, sometimes) tedious stories in -the individual dialects of their respective localities. There are books -in the dialect of the negro, as, for example, Thomas Nelson Page’s, to -mention only one writer of a large class, those in the dialect of the -Tennessee mountains, as, for example, Miss Murfee’s books, those in -the dialect of the “Georgia cracker,” as the stories of Joel Chandler -Harris, and a host of others in various parts of the country. These -books are almost like the sands of the seashore for number.</p> - -<p>So numerous and varied are the local dialects in this country that -a contributor to the North American<span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</span> Review, some few years ago, -ventured the thesis that from the very nature of the diverse and -varied character of our local dialects, there can not be any such -thing as a great national novel in the United States. While this, it -must be admitted, is a somewhat extreme view, to which many do not -feel prepared to subscribe, the fact yet remains that there are marked -dialectal peculiarities in the spoken language of certain localities. -These dialectal peculiarities, however, are fast disappearing before -the onward march of the unifying influence of education, the printing -press, and the railroad. When the leavening power of education has -permeated the entire population of the country, there will result -uniformity of speech, and dialectal variations from the common norm -will linger but as a tradition.</p> - -<p>The dialect authors, in the meantime, are doing the reading public a -service in furnishing it with entertaining stories of an elevating -character. Moreover, some of them at least, as for example, Page, -Harris and others, are rendering literature and science an ulterior -service, consciously or unconsciously, in preserving in their books -types of a people and their speech which a wave of oblivion is rapidly -sweeping away.</p> - -<p>If one will examine the speech of the negro and the native-born -illiterate white, it matters not whether the latter be from New -England, or from the South, one will find that, excepting certain -provincialisms peculiar to their respective homes, their language -has much in common, and to the student of historic English, it -exhibits indisputable evidence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</span> of its affinity with the English -of the seventeenth century. This is obvious from such words as -<i>hand-kercher</i>, <i>ar</i> (air), <i>pint</i> (point), <i>pison</i> -(poison), <i>gwine</i> (going), <i>arrant</i> (errand), <i>cratur</i> -(creature), <i>arth</i> (earth), all of which are common alike to the -“Yankee dialect” and to the negro dialect. The student who is familiar -with the development of the English tongue will at once recognize these -as standard, according to the received pronunciation of the seventeenth -century. But in the development of the language, these pronunciations -subsequently fell into disuse and were discarded by standard English. -They still survived, however, in the lower stratum of society among the -poor and illiterate who, denied the privileges and advantages of an -education and therefore ignorant of the most elementary principles of -grammar, inherited this speech from their ancestors and handed it down, -with but little change, from generation to generation to their children.</p> - -<p>The language of the seventeenth century was brought to America by the -early settlers and was taught the slaves, and the tongue which the -illiterate negroes then learned to speak they have preserved, without -any material change, down to the present generation. Since this is -the case, we can not then be surprised to find upon examination that -many of their dialectal pronunciations and locutions are to be traced -back to classic authors of an earlier period, yea, to Shakespeare -himself. In this sense it is doubtless true that many of the fossilized -pronunciations of our illiterates are much nearer the language of, and -would therefore be more intelligible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</span> to, Shakespeare and Milton than -present standard English.</p> - -<p>Every one who has ever heard the old negro preacher giving an -“exhortation” at the close of his fervid “sarmon” knows very well that, -though the old man’s heart was perhaps right and himself on the way -to the kingdom, his conscience never for a moment troubled him about -his loose grammar. Notwithstanding his sanctification and his ecstatic -anticipation of the joys of the kingdom for which he was bound, he -had no conscientious scruples about “axin’” his “ole marster” if the -latter was at all tardy in offering him the desired help. Perhaps many -of those who were so familiar with the lingo of the old preacher never -reflected that his language, like his heart, was, after all, not very -far wrong and entirely without precedent when he “axed” for something. -He was but obeying the scriptural injunction, which, according to -Tyndale’s version, reads: “Axe and it shall be geven you.” Nor do they -know that he was following, all unwittingly, to be sure, the example -set by the first English printer, Caxton, who, in the preface to his -edition of Vergil’s Aeneid, used precisely the same expression. If then -the old parson blundered, as, according to our modern standard, he did, -he at all events blundered in good company.</p> - -<p>In Chaucer, “the first finder of our faire language,” as his ardent -disciple Occleve rapturously, though quaintly, called him, we find -the same word. Here we find also forms long since fossilized, though -still preserved in the speech of the untutored, such<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</span> as <i>kiver</i>, -<i>driv</i>, <i>holp</i>, <i>writ</i>, <i>rid</i>, etc. In “Much -Ado About Nothing” Dogberry, albeit he dislocates the dictionary in -speaking of that villain who, he prophesies, would be condemned to -everlasting redemption, yet uses grammar which, for his day, was above -reproach, when he exclaimed: “O that I had been writ down an ass!”</p> - -<p>So we must acknowledge that no violence was done to the language, -however our sense of propriety may be shocked, when a century or so -ago a Londoner remarked to his friend who had come up from his home -in the country to see the play of “Orpheus and Eurydice,” and who was -copiously bespattered with mud, as a result of his ride: “You came -up to town, I suppose, to see Orpheus and <i>you rid I see</i>.” It -would be difficult to find in the literature of that period a more -felicitous illustration of a perfectly legitimate play on words which -the contemporary pronunciation permitted.</p> - -<p>Shakespeare, who could not resist the temptation to make a pun whenever -opportunity offered, furnishes additional evidence of his versatility -and ingenuity in his apt recognition of the obsolete pronunciation -of many words of his time, which he turned to good account. Hence so -many of his witticisms. In “Henry IV,” for instance, Falstall says: -“If reasons were a plentiful as blackberries, I would give no man -a reason upon compulsion,” thus playing upon the old pronunciation -of <i>raisins</i> with which we are all familiar upon the lips of -the unlettered. Thus he plays upon the antiquated pronunciation of -<i>Rome</i> as <i>room</i>, when, in “Julius Caesar,” Cassius<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</span> says of -Caesar’s vaulting ambition which o’erleaped itself:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Now is it Rome indeed and Roome enough,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">When there is in it but one only man.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>One of the conundrums of that period, which, by the way, could only -have belonged to that period, illustrates the antiquated pronunciation -of <i>chair</i> as <i>cheer</i>, still current among the illiterate. -“Why is a stout man always happy?” The answer was, “Because he is -cheerful (chair full).”</p> - -<p>It is needless to multiply random illustrations. We owe a lasting -debt of gratitude to the philologists who have labored in this field -and illuminated this subject which before was enveloped with almost -Cimmerian darkness. These amenities of philology which have been -mentioned above are but an incident of the arduous and laborious -pursuits of those philologists. Let us consider for a while some of -the results of their research which prove how the English language has -changed.</p> - -<p>Every student who has given any attention to the historical development -of our speech knows that it has changed from age to age no less in -form than in pronunciation. Indeed, it could not be a living tongue if -it did not constantly change. The oldest form of the language which -we call Anglo-Saxon gradually changed in form and sound till Middle -English times, and then it continued to change even more rapidly -till modern times. It has undergone no small change even since the -days of Elizabeth,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</span> when our great dramatists spoke and wrote it. So -great are these changes through which our vernacular has passed that -a modern could not converse with one of his Saxon forebears of the -time of the good and great King Alfred except through an interpreter -of his own mother-tongue. If any man is skeptical on this point, -let him test himself by trying to modernize offhand a passage from -one of Alfred’s own works. Indeed, it is not necessary to go so far -back. For Shakespeare, not to mention Chaucer, may prove a rock of -offence and would no doubt appear to most of us to speak in an unknown -tongue, could we hear him speak. Surely the commentators find no end -of difficulties in interpreting his writings which have been preserved -to us. Even were we to approach Shakespeare from the vantage ground -of the famous Tieck and Schlegel translation which some patriotic -German scholars with more zeal than knowledge assert is better than the -original, no doubt, we should still encounter many hard sayings in the -master dramatist’s language. Much less therefore should we be able to -understand his spoken tongue, since spoken speech, in the very nature -of things, changes far more than written language.</p> - -<p>However, it is not our purpose here to use Shakespeare as a concrete -illustration to show how our speech has changed even in the last few -centuries. We have chosen two other authors who flourished long after -the voice of the “sweet swan of Avon” had ceased to sing and his bones -had moulded back to dust in the quaint parish church of Stratford. -These writers are the distinguished satirists, the vigorous<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</span> Dryden -and the didactic Pope. Their rhymes are a fairly accurate index to the -standard contemporary pronunciation.</p> - -<p>Dryden has often been taxed with a certain laxity in his rhymes, -and to one not recognizing the difference between the pronunciation -current in England in the seventeenth century and that accepted at -the beginning of the twentieth century, the criticism would appear to -be well founded. But it must be borne in mind that the sounds of the -English vowels, especially, have undergone a considerable change since -Dryden’s day. We should not be surprised then if, when we apply the -present standard of English pronunciation to his rhymes, they seem -somewhat imperfect. However, this is not intended to extenuate Dryden’s -false rhymes, of which there are confessedly some; for he had neither -a sensitive ear nor a tender conscience in his work for the stage. His -motto expressed in his own words was,</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“He who lives to please, must please to live.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>Yet Dryden was, after all, no greater sinner in this respect than -others of his day, or even of the present day, whose verses furnish -such monstrosities as <i>has</i> rhyming with <i>was</i>, <i>love</i> -consorting with <i>move</i>,—rhymes which “keep the word of promise to -the eye and break it to the ear.” Let us now cite a few of the received -pronunciations of the seventeenth century as indicated in the rhymes of -that day. It will be observed that where these are still lingering in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</span> -our speech to-day, they are regarded simply as vulgarisms.</p> - -<p>Such words as <i>please</i>, <i>these</i>, <i>seize</i>, <i>severe</i>, -<i>sea</i>, <i>speak</i>, <i>complete</i>, and the like were -pronounced, in the seventeenth century and in the first half of the -eighteenth, in a way which, to the modern ear, is decidedly suggestive -of the Irish “brogue.” For both Dryden and Pope pronounced these words -<i>plase</i>, <i>thase</i>, <i>saze</i>, <i>savare</i>, <i>say</i>, -<i>spake</i>, <i>complate</i>: and this was the received pronunciation -during that period. Pope, therefore, whose delicate ear was easily -fascinated by the vigor and musical cadence of his master Dryden -preserves but the aroma of the old tea, in that heroic couplet upon a -mock heroic subject:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Dost sometimes counsel take—and sometimes tea.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>Likewise, again he says:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Soft yielding minds to water glide away,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">And sip, with nymphs, their elemental tea.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>Dryden pertinently asks, in his Absalom and Achitophel:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“But when should people strive their bonds to break,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">If not when kings are negligent or weak?”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>So Pope likewise pronounced <i>weak</i> rhyming it with <i>take</i>. -Both he and Dryden offer numerous examples of <i>speak</i> rhyming with -<i>wake</i>, <i>sphere</i> with <i>bear,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</span> hear</i> with <i>care</i>, -<i>retreat</i> and <i>complete</i> with <i>great</i>, and <i>treat</i> -with the French <i>tête</i>, as in Pope’s imitation of Horace:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“The guests withdrawn had left the treat,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">And down the mice sate, tête-à-tête.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>In the Hind and the Panther Dryden uses the now vulgar pronunciation of -<i>clear</i> thus:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“The sense is intricate, ’tis only clear</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">What vowels and consonants are there.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>But this was a perfectly faultless rhyme then and was sanctioned by the -best usage. So the vulgar pronunciation of <i>key</i> is the only open -sesame to this perfect rhyme in Dryden’s time:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“’Twere pity treason at his door to lay,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Who makes heaven’s gate a lock to its own key.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>Here also occurs the obsolete pronunciation of <i>says</i> rhyming -with <i>days</i>, and <i>said</i> is wedded to <i>maid</i> and even -<i>have</i> consorts with <i>slave</i> and <i>wave</i>, all of which -pronunciations have long ago been repudiated by standard English and -survive now only in the speech of the rustics and upon Irish lips.</p> - -<p>The story is told of an old Scotchman who, like some others not of -Scotch descent, occasionally draw their inspiration from an illicit -source that during a spell of serious illness he was visited by the -good minister who pointed out to him his weakness and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</span> endeavored to -persuade him to leave off his bibulous habit. When the minister told -the erring Scotchman that in heaven whither he was going there would -be no wine, he impulsively exclaimed: “I dinna ken, but I think it -would be but <i>dacent</i> (decent) to have it on the table.” This is -precisely the way Dryden and Pope pronounced the word <i>decent</i>, -and the pronunciation still lingers as a provincialism.</p> - -<p>Pope rhymes <i>nature</i> with <i>satire</i> and makes Craggs exclaim -in a dialogue:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Alas, if I am such a creature</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">To grow the worse for growing greater.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>This rhyme at that time was perfect to the ear, though false to the -eye. Again, Pope wishes—</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“That all mankind might that just mean observe,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">In which none e’er could surfeit, none could starve.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>As for the atmosphere, Pope called it <i>aar</i>, making the word -rhyme with <i>star</i>, and <i>are</i> and <i>were</i> he pronounced -occasionally <i>air</i> and <i>ware</i>. These pronunciations, it is -interesting to note, are still heard now and then from the lips of -educated men, either as an affected archaism or more probably from -sheer force of a habit of utterance acquired in youth.</p> - -<p>There is another vulgarism with a pedigree which is especially to be -noted because it is never heard now except from the unlettered. Yet -in the seventeenth century this was the standard pronunciation. We -refer to the obsolete pronunciation of such words<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</span> as <i>oblige</i>, -<i>join</i>, <i>poison</i> and the like. In his Epistle to Arbuthnot in -which Pope pilloried so many of his contemporary poetasters and there -left them to the vulgar gaze of all subsequent ages, among others he -damned Addison with faint praise as—</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Dreading e’en fools, by flatterers besieged,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">And so obliging that he ne’er obliged.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>Our <i>join</i>, <i>poison</i>, <i>point</i>, <i>soil</i>, -<i>spoil</i>, and so on, would have offended the ear of Dryden and -Pope, who invariably said <i>jine</i>, <i>pison</i>, <i>pint</i>, etc. -In this respect the speech of our rustics is the speech which Dryden -and Pope spoke, though their faith and morals are probably not those -which these authors held.</p> - -<p>In the words of Pope himself:—</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Waller was smooth, but Dryden taught to join</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">The varying sense, the full-resounding line,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">The long majestic march and energy divine.”</span><br /> -<br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Good nature and good sense must ever join;</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">To err is human; to forgive, divine.”</span><br /> -<br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“’Tis not enough, taste, judgment, learning join;</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">In all you speak, let truth and candor shine.”</span><br /> -<br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“In grave Quintilian’s copious work we find</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">The justest rules and clearest method join’d.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>It is interesting to observe that we still say <i>choir</i>. These -words with the <i>oi</i>-diphthong are well-nigh all<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</span> of Anglo-French -origin, except <i>boil</i>, in the sense of tumor, where the -Anglo-Saxon <i>byle</i> proves that its development into the now -vulgar <i>bile</i> is regular. But in standard English the word has -been wrested from its normal course of development, probably through -association in the popular mind with the verb <i>boil</i>, or to avoid -confusion with <i>bile</i> (secretion of the liver), and its spelling -has been changed to <i>boil</i> to satisfy, in Lowell’s apt phrase, -the logic of the eye. But let it be said parenthetically that logic is -among the least potent factors in the development of a language.</p> - -<p>In the light of these facts, then, we appreciate more fully the -significance of the words of Ellis, in his monumental work on Early -English Pronunciation: “For the polite sounds of a past generation -are the <i>bêtes noires</i> of the present. Who at present, with -any claim to “<i>eddication</i>” would <i>jine</i> in praising the -<i>pints</i> of a <i>picter</i>? But certainly there was a time when -<i>education</i>, <i>join</i>, <i>points</i> and <i>picture</i> would -have sounded equally strange.”</p> - -<p>In the Yankee dialect, as we learn from Lowell’s admirable essay on -this theme in the introduction to his Biglow Papers, “the <i>u</i> -in the ending <i>ture</i> is always shortened, making <i>ventur</i>, -<i>natur</i>, <i>pictur</i>, and so on. This was common also among the -educated of the last generation. I am inclined to think it may have -been once universal, and I certainly think it more elegant than the -vile <i>vencher</i>, <i>naycher</i>, <i>pickcher</i>, that have taken -its place, sounding like the invention of a lexicographer to mitigate a -sneeze.” When Lowell wrote these words, very little attention<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</span> had been -given to the study of dialects and their significance as exhibiting -fossilized forms of a language. But since the publication of Ellis’s -excellent work on the early pronunciation of our mother-tongue, a flood -of light has been shed upon the tortuous path of the history of English -sounds. Thus we can be sure that the speech of our illiterates, however -vulgar and antiquated it may sound to our twentieth century ears, is, -at least in many instances, the polite pronunciation of the seventeenth -century. It is the English which the Pilgrim Fathers brought over with -them when they landed on the shores of the New World.</p> - -<p>So much for the dialect of our illiterates, the <i>lingua rustica</i>. -Let us now consider the Irish dialect which is another fruitful source -of vulgarisms with a pedigree. A moment’s reflection will suffice to -convince the reader that this speech is very closely allied in origin -with the English brought to America by the early settlers.</p> - -<p>It is well known that the English language, as spoken by the Irish, -has a peculiarity of utterance commonly called “the Irish brogue” and -differs materially from standard English. Why this clearly marked and -distinctive mode of utterance which differentiates the English speech -on Irish lips from the same language as spoken in England and America? -As a matter of fact the English spoken by the educated sons of Erin is -the same as that used in England and America. But the language of the -Irish in the rural districts of Ireland and of those who have emigrated -to America is something quite<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</span> different, and varies considerably in -idiom and pronunciation from standard English. It is this which is -usually termed “the Irish brogue.”</p> - -<p>To get at the origin of this lingo we must go back to the time when -Ireland was settled by the English. The tongue originally spoken in -Ireland was of course the Old Irish, or Gaelic, and this was very -closely related to the Welsh and the speech of the ancient Britons who -resisted the Roman invasion under Julius Caesar. This was the tongue -of the whole of Britain when our Saxon forefathers first found their -way across the Channel from Northern Germany. This therefore was the -vernacular of King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table mentioned -in the Arthurian legends.</p> - -<p>As far back as the twelfth century, history records that the English -began to plant colonies on the Emerald Isle and to settle parts of it, -such as Forth and Bargay. But these were unimportant from our present -point of view. The English settlements in Ireland from which the -English language spread and diffused itself over the country were those -made in Ulster and the north during the reign of James I, in 1611. This -English emigration was re-enforced by the invasion of Cromwell, in -1649. So then it was during the seventeenth century that the domain of -the Irishman’s native tongue was invaded by the English speech.</p> - -<p>It will be recalled that, inasmuch as Ireland was originally populated -by the Celtic race, it follows that the genuine Irishman is really a -Celt, not a Saxon, although he now speaks English as his venacular.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</span> He -was therefore of the same race and blood as the ancient Britons whom -our Saxon forefathers found in possession of the country when they -first came to Britain from the Continent. The British people represent -a fusion of these two races—Celtic and Saxon—with the Saxon element -predominating. According to Matthew Arnold’s dictum, it is from the -Celtic blood flowing in the veins of the Englishman that he gets his -sentiment. In his composite being, the modern Englishman combines -with his original steady-going Saxon temperament something of the -Celt’s instinct for sentiment, love of beauty, charm and spirituality, -together with something of the Norman’s tact for business. According -to Matthew Arnold, therefore, there is a commingling of these three -streams in the English race, the Celtic and the Norman both being -merged in the Saxon. As the defect of his qualities the Celt had -ineffectualness and self-will,—qualities which still mark the Irish -genius. The words of that eminent nineteenth century critic are very -suggestive as indicating the influence of the Celtic spirit upon the -Saxon, whether we are prepared to share his opinion or not. “If I -were asked,” remarks he in his admirable essay On the Study of Celtic -Literature, “where English poetry got these three things—its turn for -style, its turn for melancholy, and its turn for natural magic, for -catching and rendering the charm of nature in a wonderfully near and -vivid way—I should answer, with some doubt, that it got much of its -turn for style from a Celtic source; with less doubt, that it got much -of its melancholy from<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</span> a Celtic source; with no doubt at all, that -from a Celtic source it got nearly all of its magic.”</p> - -<p>But to return to the language of the Irish. When the English settlers -emigrated to Ulster, they carried with them the English speech of the -seventeenth century. A moment’s reflection teaches us that this was the -pronunciation of the days of Milton and Dryden which was transplanted -into Ireland. Now, it must be borne in mind that the English of that -century was transferred to a country where the native speech and method -of utterance were entirely different from those employed in England. -The effect of this was to cause some modification in the transplanted -language when the English speech came into actual contact with the -native Irish tongue on Irish soil. When English was diffused over -Ireland the native speech of which differed both in its body of sounds -and in its distinctive method of enunciation from the triumphant -language, the natives learned to speak the new tongue with their own -characteristic mode of utterance. It was but natural therefore that -the English speech should undergo a considerable alteration on Irish -lips. In similar circumstances the supplanted tongue always produces a -greater or less change in its victorious rival, not only in form, but -also in construction and idiom. Witness here the triumph of Anglo-Saxon -over the Celtic of the native Britons. As an illustration of the change -in idiom take this example of “Pidgin-English,” spoken in the treaty -ports of China. In one of those ports, an enterprising merchant with -a keen relish for the English shillings, but with little feeling for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</span> -the English tongue, is reputed to have put out over his shop door a -sign with this legend: “Groceries for sale, retail and whole-tail!” An -illustration of the difference in mode of utterance between two tongues -is furnished by the German, or even the French, method of pronouncing -our English <i>th</i>-sound. What inherent difficulty a native German -or Frenchman, in his unstudied utterance, encounters in pronouncing -such simple words as <i>the</i>, <i>then</i>, <i>kith</i>, etc.! On -the other hand, one whose vernacular is English experiences as great -embarrassment in pronouncing, without studied effort and practice, the -German <i>ch</i>-sound, as in <i>Bach</i>, <i>Ich</i>, etc., or the -characteristic French <i>u</i> sound as in <i>fût</i>, <i>eut</i>, -<i>pu</i>, etc.</p> - -<p>When therefore the Irish began to learn English in the seventeenth -century, they encountered certain difficulties peculiar to the English -speech. The dental combinations in our English tongue appear to have -proved a stumbling block to the Irish mode of utterance, and hence -such grotesque pronunciations as <i>tthrash</i> for <i>thrash</i>, -<i>stthraitch</i> for <i>stretch</i>, <i>Satthirday</i> for -<i>Saturday</i> and <i>scoundthrel</i> for <i>scoundrel</i>. In his -native speech the Celt trilled his <i>r’s</i>, and nothing was more -natural then than that he should do the same thing when he began to -speak English. So to the present day the <i>r</i> is emphatically -trilled on Irish lips, although it is decidedly un-English to trill -it. These few examples will serve to indicate the character of some -of the difficulties inherent in the English language which the -Irishman encountered in his effort to speak it. But there were other -difficulties<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</span> than those of utterance which had to be overcome in -mastering the spoken tongue.</p> - -<p>Furthermore, the English speech on Irish soil did not develop and -flourish as it did in its own habitat in England. On the contrary, it -always remained an exotic and it never kept pace in its growth and -development with the language on English soil. If Ireland had been -first depopulated and then settled by the British, the variations in -speech would have been much less conspicuous, even had they existed -at all. But that was not the case. Those conditions came much nearer -being fulfilled here in America when the Puritans and Cavaliers came -over to the New World, bringing with them practically the same English -as that carried into the Emerald Isle. For the first settlements in -America by the English colonists correspond in point of time to those -made in Ulster,—that is, the early seventeenth century. But the -English language in America was not contaminated by contact with the -Indian language and, with the exception of a few geographical names, -our speech shows almost no trace of Indian influence. Consequently -the English speech on American soil has had an entirely different -development from that which it had on Irish soil, although it is a -transplanted language in both instances. The explanation is found -entirely in the difference of environment. However, there are certain -fossilized phrases, provincialisms, vulgarisms, or what not, in -American English, which betray the affinity of the language of the -early settlers of America with that of the early settlers of Ireland. -Witness here the coincidence of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</span> our vulgar <i>chist</i> (chest), -<i>ingine</i> (engine), <i>quair</i> (queer), <i>hade</i> (head), -<i>afeard</i> (afraid), <i>weepin</i> (weapon), <i>kag</i> (keg), -<i>rassel</i> (wrestle), <i>arrant</i> (errand), <i>deef</i> (deaf), -<i>baste</i> (beast), <i>sarmin</i> (sermon), etc., with the Irish -pronunciation of these words.</p> - -<p>There is one marked Hibernicism which has now passed far beyond the -Irish dialect. Probably many of those from whose delicate mouths we -hear it so frequently are not aware of its Irish origin. Let it be -said by way of parenthesis that the writer does not intend this remark -as an impeachment of that charming pronunciation which boasts the -sanction of those arriving at their conclusions by instinct rather than -reason; nor is the remark made in a spirit of stoical indifference to -refined and delicate feelings like that of Balthazar, the infatuated -chemist in Balzac’s Search for the Absolute. When the beautiful eyes -of his devoted wife filled with tears as she pleaded with him not to -sacrifice all his fortune and even herself in his search for diamonds, -he ruthlessly exclaimed: “Tears! I have decomposed them; they contain -a little phosphate of lime, chloride of sodium, mucin and water.” The -Hibernicism in question is the pronunciation of “gyirl,” so wide-spread -and carefully cultivated by delicate mouths in Virginia as to be -regarded a shibboleth of those “to the manner born.” (It is of course -the prerogative of woman to change her mind,—and her name, too, if -she so elects.) Other examples of this Hibernicism are <i>cyart</i>, -<i>cyarve</i>, <i>scyar</i>, <i>gyarden</i>, <i>gyarlic</i>, -<i>gyuide</i>, <i>cyow</i> and <i>nyow</i>, which last approximates -a feline note if uttered in a falsetto. The Irish pronunciation of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</span> -<i>sure</i> extends far beyond that jargon now. Perhaps the reader -has heard the story of the good bishop’s wife who twitted her husband -about saying <i>shore</i> for <i>sure</i>, and who, when reminded that -she pronounced the word the same way, indignantly replied, “Why, to be -<i>shore</i>, I do not!”</p> - -<p>It must not be inferred from what has been said that the English spoken -in all parts of Ireland is uniform. On the contrary, it differs vastly -and varies with the locality. In some parts, indeed, English is not -spoken at all. But where it is spoken, it bears a striking resemblance, -as has been pointed out, to the English of the times of Dryden and -Pope, which was fossilized by emigration. The “brogue” itself is due to -the characteristic Celtic habit of utterance, and consists mostly in -the intonation, “which appears,” according to Murray, “full of violent -ups and downs, or rather precipices and chasms of force and pitch, -almost disguising the sound to English ears.”</p> - -<p>Thus it is evident that not a few of the expressions which now survive -only as provincialisms, or vulgarisms, in the speech of the illiterate -were once in entire accord with polite usage. Many of the locutions -heard now in the negro dialect can boast really an aristocratic -pedigree and, several generations ago, enjoyed the sanction of the -highest orthoepical authority. But these pronunciations, somehow, -drifted out of the main current of standard speech and at present -appear only as jetsam and flotsam in the back-water of our English -tongue. Yet they serve to indicate how extensively our language<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</span> has -been altered and modified even in modern times, after it found its way -to the New World. The modifications and changes, however, both in idiom -and pronunciation, would have taken place, even if the English speech -had never been transplanted into foreign territory. Conclusive proof of -this is furnished by a comparison of present-day British English with -the English of two centuries ago as spoken in the mother country; and -this, though not explicitly stated, is implied in the discussion of the -theme in the foregoing paragraphs.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="BRITICISMS_VERSUS_AMERICANISMS">BRITICISMS VERSUS AMERICANISMS.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>It is a recognized fact that there is a considerable variation in -the English language as spoken by the two great branches of the -Anglo-Saxon race. The English people differ from the American people -in the use of our common speech not only in their characteristic mode -of pronunciation and orthography, but they also differ from us in no -less striking a manner in the use of certain idioms and household -phrases, which constitute the small change of our every-day speech. -This difference is the natural outgrowth of the separation of the two -peoples by the estranging ocean, which is of necessity a great barrier -to complete intercourse. To be sure, the fact that the English people -and the American people have distinct national entities with the -resulting difference, during the last hundred years, of national ideals -and pursuits, has had the natural and inevitable effect of widening the -breach between the speech of the two countries. No doubt the present -variation will be accentuated more and more as the years go by, and the -language of Great Britain and of America, far from becoming absolutely -identical in pronunciation and idiom with the flight of centuries, will -go on developing with an ever-increasing divergence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</span> from the common -standard. If this be true—and certainly the facts as to the present -tendency seem to warrant such a conclusion—the final result may be the -unique linguistic phenomenon of two separate and distinct tongues, if -such a thing be not an impossibility.</p> - -<p>Before pointing out the variations of our American English from British -English, it may be interesting to note the source of our American -vernacular, and the contributing causes of the chief variations from -the authoritative standard of the mother country.</p> - -<p>When our Saxon forefathers found their way to the shores of this -western continent and here established their permanent abode, the -settlers naturally brought with them the language of their native -country. This was, of course, the noble tongue of Shakespeare and -Milton. Our British cousins who criticize our English so freely -and cast reproach upon it as if it were a mere jargon, a barbarous -<i>patois</i>, evidently lose sight of the fact that it boasts the -same high pedigree as their own much-vaunted Elizabethan speech. When -the English language was first transplanted in American soil, it was -identical in orthography, orthoepy and idiom with the speech of the -mother country. But the transplanted tongue, having a new and different -habitat, began at once to adapt itself, however imperceptibly, to its -changed environ and new conditions. Nor was the connection with the -parent stock a sufficiently close and vital bond of union to prevent -the English speech on American lips from undergoing at least some -slight<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</span> modification in the course of time, as a natural consequence of -the altered conditions in the new world.</p> - -<p>It is a well-established linguistic principle that a language -inevitably undergoes a slight change, determined by the varying -conditions, as long as it is spoken. When a tongue ceases to be spoken, -then and only then does it cease to change and become a dead language, -as, for instance, Latin and Greek. This fact of the gradual change in a -living language is demonstrated through the difficulty one experiences -in understanding the English of Chaucer, or even of Shakespeare, for -the matter of that, although he is not so far removed from the present -age. If a living tongue underwent no alteration with the lapse of -years, then why should not Anglo-Saxon be as readily intelligible to us -as modern English?</p> - -<p>Furthermore, a language is affected in its development by contact with -a foreign tongue and by outside influences, such as the climate. The -first of these reasons is so apparent to all that it hardly deserves -comment. But not so the second. Yet the influence of climate on a -living language is very fruitful of change. Ready proof of this is -furnished in our own country in the soft, musical utterance of the -south in contrast with the rather shrill and forceful habits of -enunciation characteristic of the north. In Europe, for example, the -vast preponderance of the harsh, guttural character of the German -tongue offers a glaring contrast to the smooth, liquid notes of the -pure Tuscan speech. This is the reason why Italian appeals so strongly -to music lovers and to all who have an ear trained to be especially -sensitive to sound.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</span> Now, this difference between German and Italian, -as respects the musical character of the two languages, is doubtless -to be explained in large measure as the result of climate conditions -extending through many long centuries. If by some violent political -upheaval the Italians were transported to the extreme northern part -of Europe, it is altogether probable that their speech in the course -of centuries would lose much of its native vocalic development, much -of its melody, and become harsh and strident, somewhat like the -Russian language. It follows, therefore, that the English speech on -American soil has undergone some slight modification, in consequence -of climatic influence. Perhaps this explains the variation of the -American pronunciation of the long <i>o</i>-sound as in “stone” and -“bone” from the British norm. But the difference in climate between the -two countries is not sufficiently marked to produce any very radical -departure.</p> - -<p>A striking feature of the English speech on American lips is the -leveling of the long <i>a</i>-sound heard in such words as “past,” -“fast,” “plant,” “command,” “dance,” “path,” etc. This could hardly -be the result of climatic influence, however, for it does not appear -that the climate has had the effect of producing any modification in -the pronunciation of such terms in any part of America. The prevailing -pronunciation of these terms is the same, at the south and at the north -alike. Such a variation must, therefore, be inherent in the natural -growth of the English language on American soil. For it must be borne -in mind that just as the English speech, as any other<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</span> living organism, -has been growing and developing during the centuries in England, so, -likewise, in America it has been growing and developing during the -last three centuries, but not necessarily in the same manner. Those -employing the language in Great Britain and in the United States are no -longer a homogeneous people with the same national ideals and destiny. -On the contrary, they are two separate and distinct nations with -different forms of government and with different aims and aspirations. -Add to this the fact that the nations have been estranged by political -differences which resulted in wars and that they are separated by -the physical barrier of a vast ocean. In the face of these obstacles -it is not at all surprising that the English speech has not gone on -developing <i>pari passu</i> on both sides of the Atlantic. The wonder -is that the present variations are not really greater and more striking -than they are.</p> - -<p>Another contributing cause of variation of American English from the -British norm must not be overlooked, the more especially as it has -proved a prolific factor. In our new country some conditions of life -arose which were totally unlike those existing in the old country. -Such strange conditions called imperatively for the invention of new -names and thus gave rise to the employment of new phrases and new -locutions. These had to be coined immediately for the emergency. Since -the most distinctive traits of the American are initiative and wealth -of resource, no time was lost in making such additions to the English -speech as seemed to supply a felt need, and that, too, without any -special reference to British models<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</span> and precedents. Hence a large -class of terms distinctively American and bearing upon their face -the trade-mark “made in America” found their way into the English -vocabulary on this side of the Atlantic, much to the disgust of the -British precisians and purists, who proceeded forthwith to put these -new coinages under the ban and to brand them with the bend sinister -of “Americanism.” Of this class are many terms indicating mechanical -inventions and appliances, such as “elevator” instead of the British -“lift,” to mention only a single example of a long catalogue of useful -things which American genius has given to the world. Here also belong -numerous words expressing things associated with modern transportation -and rapid transit, such as “street-car,” “railroad,” etc.</p> - -<p>Perhaps it may be well just here to call attention to some of the -ordinary terms and expressions heard in England which strike an -American as being quite odd and peculiar. It is to be presumed that -the good Britons will not be offended if we, using the same license -as themselves, venture to call such expressions “Briticisms.” Let it -be distinctly understood, however, that this is not intended as an -opprobrious epithet, but only to signify a word or an idiom which is -peculiar to Great Britain and not familiar in America. For surely the -English people have the right to employ whatever terms they may choose -both in their colloquial and in their written speech.</p> - -<p>If an American in London wishes to use a language that is readily -understood, when he goes to the ticket-office he must call it the -booking office of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</span> railway station. There he must ask the clerk, or -rather the “clark,” for a first single or a second return, instead of -a single fare (first-class) and a round trip (second class). He must -then have his luggage labeled, not his baggage checked, and, having -secured his brasses or labels, not his checks, he sees his box, not his -trunk, put in the proper van and then takes his seat in the carriage, -not in the car. Before the train starts off, the guards slam the doors -of the carriages, turning the handles, and at the conductor’s whistle -the engine-driver starts his locomotive-engine. The points all being -set for a clear track ahead, the train speeds along the metals, passing -perhaps a shunting-engine about the station and a train of goods-vans.</p> - -<p>The variation of British from American usage is not more noteworthy in -railway parlance than in other circles. If an American goes shopping -in London, he must call for a packet, not a paper, of pins; a reel, -not a spool, of cotton. If he desires to buy a pair of shoes, he must -call for boots, unless he wishes low quarters or Oxford ties; if a -pair of overshoes, he must ask for footholds or galoshes; if a soft -felt hat, he must ask for a squash hat, or if he prefers a Derby, -he must ask for a billy-cock hat or a bowler; if he wishes a pad of -paper, he should request a block of paper. If he goes to a restaurant, -he indicates whether he desires his meat underdone, not rare; if he -wishes corned beef, he calls for silversides of beef; if beets, he -calls for beetroot; if chicken, he calls for fowl; if a cereal of any -sort, he calls for corn; if cold bread, he must order cut bread; and -if he desires<span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</span> pudding, pie, jam, preserves or candy, he must order -sweets, short for sweetmeats. If the waiter should fail for any reason -to give him a napkin, an American should ask for a serviette; and when -he has finished his repast, he is handed a bill which he may pay with -his cheque, or, if he prefers, with the cash from his purse, not his -pocket-book.</p> - -<p>If in England you find no bowl and pitcher in your room, you are -expected, as previously observed,<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> to call for a jug and basin, -since there a pitcher means only a little jug and a bowl is used -exclusively for serving food in. On the street, instead of a letter -box near a lamp post, you see a pillar box near a lamp pillar, and -you perhaps meet a person pushing a perambulator, called “pram” -for short, instead of a baby-carriage. For dry-goods you go to a -mercer’s, where you will find white calico sold for muslin. For cloth -you go to a draper’s, for wooden ware to a turnery, for hardware to -an ironmonger’s, for milk, butter and eggs to a cow-keeper’s or a -dairy, and for fish, game and poultry to a fish shop. If you desire -any of your purchases sent to your address, you order them sent by -express-carrier, carriage paid.</p> - -<p>If at any time you desire the services of a scrub-woman to clean -your apartments, you send for a charwoman. If you wish to have some -furniture upholstered, you request the upholder to undertake the work -for you. If you need the services of a doctor, you call in a medical -man. You must be careful to address surgeons and dentists by the common -democratic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</span> title “mister,” since the English custom does not warrant -you to address them as “doctor.” If you are well, to your inquiring -friends you are reported “fit,” if unwell, “seedy,” if sick, invariably -“ill.”</p> - -<p>To an American ear British orthoepy offers quite as noteworthy -surprises as the idiomatic diction does. Of course it is to be presumed -that there should be more or less marked variations in the matter of -habitual utterance of certain sounds, especially the long <i>o</i>- -and the long <i>a</i>-vowel, as in “fast,” “dance,” “sha’n’t,” etc., -which are at striking variance with American usage. Indeed, these -sounds are so characteristic that, like the English custom of ending -almost every sentence with a question, when clearly natural and not -an affectation, they serve as a shibboleth of British nativity. But -notable eccentricities are to be observed in the English mode of -pronouncing many proper names such as Derby, pronounced “darby”; -Berkeley, pronounced “barclay”; Magdalen, pronounced “maudlin”; -Cadogan, pronounced “kerduggan”; Marylebone, pronounced “merrybone”; -Cholmondeley, pronounced “chumly”; Marlborough, pronounced “mobrer”; -Albany, pronounced so that the first syllable rhymes with Al- in -Alfred, etc. It is unnecessary to multiply examples. Suffice it to -say that there is a large class of these words the spelling and -pronunciation of which seem to an American rather curiously divorced. -Certainly American usage offers no parallel where there is so complete -a divorce of orthoepy from orthography. American usage makes for -phonetic spelling and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</span> tends to make the conventional pronunciation and -spelling conform somewhat, at least.</p> - -<p>Having drawn attention to a few Briticisms, we are now prepared to -discuss some of our Americanisms which seem to excite in the pure -minds of the English precisians alternate feelings of disgust and -indignation. Let it be premised, however, that it is not proposed to -include ordinary slang in the present discussion. It must be admitted -that too much slang is employed even in polite circles, not to mention -the speech of those who make no pretense to refinement and culture. -But one should not confuse vulgarisms with so-called Americanisms, -just as one should not confuse vulgarisms with legitimate slang. -The discriminating student distinguishes between ordinary slang and -legitimate slang. The vulgar slang of the street is, of course, to be -universally condemned and tabooed. Legitimate slang, on the contrary, -performs an important function in the development of a living language. -It is not to be inconsiderately ostracized, therefore, and put under -the ban as the chief source of corruption of our vernacular, as certain -of our purists, in their zeal without knowledge, tell us and attempt to -maintain. It is idle for them in their self-appointed rôle of guardian -of the pristine purity of the English tongue to endeavor to defend so -unsound and so indefensible a thesis. For legitimate slang, far from -being an unmitigated evil and a constant menace to the purity and -propriety of our noble tongue, is standard English in the making, is -idiom in the nascent state before it has attained to the dignity of -correctness of usage. To change the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</span> figure, legitimate slang is the -recruiting ground whence come the new and untried words which are to -take the place in the vernacular, of the archaic and obsolete words, -dropping out of the ranks. But it is aside from the main purpose of -this chapter to discuss the relation of slang to standard usage (cf. -“What is slang?”) and hence this only in passing.</p> - -<p>By an Americanism, as here used, is meant a word, phrase, or idiom of -the English tongue, in good standing, which has originated in America -or is in use only on this side of the Atlantic. It will be seen, -therefore, that all mere slang expressions, even though they be of -American origin, are barred from the present consideration. In his -dictionary of “Americanisms,” Bartlett gives a large collection, many -of which the above limitation, of course, excludes.</p> - -<p>Of reputed Americanisms, as one might surmise, there are several -classes to be distinguished, without any very clearly defined line -of demarcation separating them. One class includes a large number -of phrases which had their origin in England and were transported -thence to our shores by the first settlers who came from the mother -country and established themselves in Virginia and Massachusetts. In -the last analysis these locutions appear to be transplanted British -provincialisms, not a few of which came over in the <i>Mayflower</i>. -Some of our British critics who are not as familiar with the history -of the English language as they might be do not hesitate to deliver -an offhand opinion, pronouncing an apparent neologism an Americanism, -when as a matter of fact the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</span> expression shows a good English pedigree -extending back many generations. A more intimate acquaintance with the -history of our common speech would save them the embarrassment from -such a glaring blunder. But it is so easy to fall into the careless -habit of branding as an Americanism an unfamiliar idiom or a phrase -that is rarely heard in England. This convenient term has thus become -in England a reproach, inasmuch as a certain stigma, somehow, attaches -to it in the British mind. But for all that, like charity, it covers -a multitude of sins, sins of keen prejudice, no less than of crass -ignorance.</p> - -<p>Many of the so-called Americanisms are really survivals of Elizabethan -English and boast a Shakespearean pedigree, although they are no longer -heard in the country of that consummate master of our speech.<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> -Somehow, they seem to have drifted out of the main current of British -English. Perhaps they have been caught up by an eddy and carried into -one of the provinces where they are still preserved, as they are in -America, fresh and vigorous. A moment’s reflection will show that -we Americans come rightly by our Elizabethan English. For surely -New England, Maryland and Virginia were settled by those who spoke -the tongue of Shakespeare, even though they did not all hold the -faith and morals of Milton. Many of these settlers—both Puritan and -Cavalier—were college-bred men, graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. -Therefore they inherited the best traditions of the English speech and -transmitted<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</span> it uncorrupted to their children. Nor were their children -wilful traducers and corruptors of the King’s English, but contrariwise -they conserved it and safeguarded its purity quite as sedulously as the -inhabitants of the mother country. Thus the English speech was handed -down, undefiled, from one generation to another, in America. Hence some -words and phrases of good Elizabethan usage have been preserved in -America, which long ago became obsolete and dropped out of the living -speech in England, where the growth of the language was, of course, -not arrested by the rude shock incident to its being transplanted in a -foreign country.</p> - -<p>Let us now point out a few examples of reputed Americanisms, social -pariahs which have lost caste and no longer move in polite circles in -England. An interesting example is found in the word “fall” used in the -sense of autumn. Both these terms are in favor in America, although the -pedants, following the lead of British critics, proscribe the use of -“fall.” We are told it is not employed in standard English, and hence -must be censured as provincial. Yet “fall,” which enjoys a certain -poetic association with the fall of the leaf, can offer in its support -the high authority of Dryden, who employed it in his translation of -Juvenal’s satires:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">What crowds of patients the town doctor kills,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Or how last fall he raised the weekly bills.</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>In his “Northern Farmer,” Tennyson used the offending word, but of -course under the cloak of a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</span> provincialism. Still Freeman did not deign -to employ it. Commenting on it, he remarks: “If fall as a season of the -year has gone out of use in Britain, it has gone out very lately. At -least I remember perfectly well the phrase of ‘spring and fall’ in my -childhood.”</p> - -<p>Another good illustration of a word still surviving in American -usage, but long ago discarded in England, is “sick” in the sense of -ill. British usage restricts the meaning to nausea, employing ill to -describe a man suffering with a disease of whatever sort. Yet “sick” -is supported by the very best literary authority. The term occurs -again and again in Elizabethan literature. Reference to Bartlett’s -concordance will convince even the most skeptical that the word -abounds in Shakespeare, and that, too, in passages where the correct -interpretation leaves no doubt that “ill” is meant. Suffice it to -cite only an example or two: In “Midsummer Night’s Dream” (act 1, -scene 1), Shakespeare makes Helena say, “Sickness is catching”; again -in “Cymbeline” (act 5, scene 4), we read, “Yet am I better than one -that’s sick of the gout”; and in “Romeo and Juliet” (act 5, scene -2), we read, “Here in this city visiting the sick.” Not only so. -“Sick,” in the American acceptation, has an unbroken line of the best -literary authority from Chaucer, “that well of English undefiled,” -down to Doctor Johnson, whose dictionary defines the word in reference -to a person afflicted with disease. American usage, furthermore, is -supported by the King James version, in which “ill” is nowhere found, -and also by the Anglican Church ritual. It is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</span> needless to multiply -citations. If Americans sin in the improper use of “sick,” it may be -urged in extenuation that they can at least plead a long array of -illustrious and unimpeachable authority and are in good company.</p> - -<p>The use of “well” as an interjection is mentioned by Bartlett in -his dictionary as one of “the most marked peculiarities of American -speech.” Moreover, he adds, “Englishmen have told me that they could -always detect an American by the use of this word.” If this is an -infallible hall-mark of American speech, then American English is -nearer the tongue of Shakespeare than British English of the present -day. For the word “well” in the sense of an interjection occurs again -and again in Shakespeare. In “Hamlet” (act 1, scene 1), Bernardo -asks, “Have you had a quiet guard?” Francisco replies, “Not a mouse -stirring.” Whereupon Bernardo adds, “Well, good-night.” Again in -“Midsummer Night’s Dream” (act 3, scene 1):</p> - -<p><i>Bottom.</i> And then indeed let him name his name, and tell them -plainly he is Snug the joiner.</p> - -<p><i>Quince.</i> Well, it shall be so.</p> - -<p>In Beaumont and Fletcher’s “Captain” (act 3, scene 3), we find an -excellent example in the line, “Well, I shall live to see your husbands -beat you.” No one, of course, would think of charging Tennyson with -using unidiomatic English. Yet, in “Locksley Hall,” you read:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">“Well—’tis well that I should bluster.”</span><br /> -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</span></p> - -<p>Surely it is superfluous to cite further examples from English authors -showing that American usage in the case of “well” as an interjection -is perfectly good English, even if the locution is censured by British -pedantry and never heard on British lips.</p> - -<p>The trite and hard-worked “guess,” as characteristic of American speech -as the much-abused “fancy” is of British speech, furnishes another -conspicuous example of a reputable word in Elizabethan English which -has become obsolete in England, but is still preserved on this side of -the Atlantic. There is no doubt that our constant employment of this -good old Saxon word to do service on every occasion and to express -every shade of thought from mild conjecture to positive assertion is -somewhat inelegant; and this circumstance has perhaps contributed to -bring the overtaxed phrase into disrepute with our kin across the sea. -Yet there is abundant warrant in Elizabethan usage for the familiar -notation we give “guess” in our every-day speech, although it is -generally confined to its strict meaning of conjecture in that period -of the language. We find it used in the familiar sense of “think” in -several passages in Shakespeare, notably in “I. Henry VI.” (act 2, -scene 1):</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Not altogether; better far, I guess,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">That we do make our entrance several ways.</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>Likewise, in “Measure for Measure” (act 4, scene 4):</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</span></p> - -<p><i>Angelo.</i> And why meet him at the gates and redeliver our -authorities there?</p> - -<p><i>Escalus.</i> I guess not.</p> - -<p>So, again, in the “Winter’s Tale” (act 4, scene 3):</p> - -<p><i>Camillo.</i> Which, I do guess, you do not purpose to him.</p> - -<p>But this meaning of “guess” is common throughout the entire history -of English literature, for the word has always borne the sense of -think, cheek by jowl with its specific meaning of conjecture. It is so -employed by Chaucer and Gower in early times and in the last century -by Sheridan and Wordsworth, certainly good literary authority enough. -However, this meaning of the term appears to have died out in the -present-day British speech, and the word is there employed strictly in -the sense of conjecture, its lost sense being supplied by “fancy.” Now, -as between the Briton’s “fancy” and the American’s “guess,” there may -not be much choice. But certainly the employment of “guess” which our -British cousins claim to be a shibboleth of American nationality does -not indicate any misuse of our mother tongue, as they contend.</p> - -<p>Only one more case shall be adduced in illustration, to wit, our -word “baggage,” which the other half of the Anglo-Saxon race has -discarded for “luggage.” Here again, as elsewhere in the exercise of -our prerogative, we have demonstrated our independence of the mother -country in the matter of our speech and have chosen one term while the -English people have adopted another, to designate the same thing. Both -words have a good literary pedigree extending<span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</span> several centuries back. -Shakespearean usage seems about equally divided, perhaps, with the -odds in favor of “baggage.” The Shakespearean coinage “bag and baggage -and scrip and scrippage,” which falls from the lips of Touchstone in -“As You Like It,” and which enjoys the familiarity of a household -word, ought to have given “baggage” a wider currency, especially in -the author’s own country. But language, like the heathen Chinee, -has ways that are dark, if not tricks that are vain, and does not -develop according to logic or our <i>a priori</i> conceptions. Between -the Briticism “luggage” and the Americanism “baggage” it appears, -therefore, to be a drawn battle. So the British have nothing to -reproach us with on this score, since convention has adopted “baggage” -on one side of the Atlantic and “luggage” on the other.</p> - -<p>So much for this interesting class of Americanisms which repose on -standard Elizabethan usage, but are social outcasts in the land of -their birth. There is another class of Americanisms which are not -bolstered up by a long literary pedigree, inasmuch as they originated -on American soil and were not imported from the Old World. As compared -with the class just considered, these latter are mere <i>parvenus</i>, -without any illustrious ancestral history to commend them. This class -of Americanisms is composed of phrases which have found their way into -our speech from various foreign sources. They have been introduced -into our tongue from our contact with diverse peoples from remote -parts of the globe. They constitute a small residuum of terms and -phrases, the presence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</span> of which in our vocabulary attests the fact of -our relations with different nations of the earth. For instance, in -the early history of our country, we had to do with the Indians, and -so borrowed from them certain terms especially pertaining to natural -objects. We also had relations with the French, and consequently -borrowed from them sundry phrases employed in official parlance, such -as “bureau of information,” for which British usage prefers “office”; -“exposition” for the British “exhibition,” and the like. Let these few -examples represent the class. It is apparent here that we have made a -slight departure from British usage. But it does not follow that our -speech, for this reason, is less pure or less idiomatic. Both American -usage and British usage show that the respective nations have decided -to employ Romance importations in official language, but they have -adopted different terms for the same object. This proves, in the first -place, the independence of the two great English-speaking nations even -in the matter of language, and, in the second place, the wide-reaching -influence of French as the recognized official and diplomatic language -during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.</p> - -<p>In addition to these two distinct classes of Americanisms there is a -third class composed of phrases and expressions which have not yet -attained to the dignity of universal currency throughout the entire -country. These are rather provincialisms which are peculiar to certain -localities. This class, therefore, does not command the importance -which the first two classes already considered do. In a heterogeneous<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</span> -population like ours, made up of people from every nationality under -heaven, it is quite natural that in certain localities there should -exist some eccentricities of speech, some departures from the received -standard—in a word, some provincialisms. It need hardly be recalled -that parts of our vast country were settled by other nations than the -English, as, for instance, New York by the Dutch and Louisiana by the -French, to mention two specific cases bearing on the point in question. -The people of these respective states, when they were incorporated into -the union, of course, did not immediately forsake their native modes -of speech and inherited vocabulary for pure, unadulterated Saxon. When -the vast southwest territory was made a part of the United States, the -people in that quarter of the land spoke a lingo which had a decided -foreign complexion. What more natural, then, than that in the speech of -that portion of our land there should exist traces of this old foreign -element? Assuredly it would have been the height of artificiality and -an unprecedented proceeding for the French element of New Orleans, when -they became citizens of the United States, to have renounced their -native French names for such natural objects as “bayou,” “levee” and -the like, in order to adopt pure Saxon terms. Likewise, it was not to -be expected that the Spanish settlers in the western section of our -country, specifically California, should abandon such native terms as -“cañon” and “ranch” and so on, for the corresponding names of genuine -English origin. Thus it happens that there is a pronounced foreign -flavor, or at least a slight tang, in the eccentricities<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</span> of speech -heard in certain localities of the United States. But these are mere -provincialisms and do not impair the quality of our standard speech, -which is English to the very core.</p> - -<p>However, it was inevitable that the English language in America should -have received an influx of foreign words on American soil. But our -speech possesses a marvelous capacity for assimilating non-Saxon -elements from whatever source. Hence the various foreign elements, -such as Indian, Dutch, French and Spanish, to mention only the chief -importations, have all been absorbed without any appreciable alteration -in the constitution of our English speech, and only traces here and -there are seen of non-Saxon elements surviving in a word or an idiom as -an enduring monument to the influence of other tongues upon our own on -American soil. Some of these foreign loans, it is true, are confined -to certain localities, and consequently are to be viewed in the light -of solecisms, or at best provincialisms. They circulate freely in a -limited area, but are not recognized as legal tender throughout the -length and breadth of the country. Such expressions are confined -chiefly to the western portion of the United States and very rarely -find their way east. It is questionable whether they are entitled to -be termed Americanisms except in the most liberal interpretation of -that phase, because they are not everywhere current and are not readily -intelligible, not “understanded of the people.”</p> - -<p>It seems appropriate at this juncture to say a word concerning dialects -in America. The assertion is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</span> sometimes made that there are no dialects -in America, that the railroad and printing press, the two potent and -indispensable agencies in our modern civilization, have leveled out all -eccentricities and peculiarities of speech and reduced our language to -a uniform standard throughout our entire country. This statement is, in -the main, true. Yet it requires only a little reflection to see that -the assertion is not absolutely accurate and in accord with the facts. -Certainly a brief residence in the several principal sections of the -United States would bring convincing refutation. There is the western -dialect, as implied in the comments in the preceding paragraph. There -is also the Yankee dialect of New England, the salient features of -which Lowell described very fully in his famous “Biglow Papers.” There -is no less truly the southern dialect with its definite peculiarities -of idiom and utterance. These dialects are quite sharply defined by -their respective characteristics of colloquial speech. Each dialect -has its own phrases and locutions familiar enough within its own -geographical divisions, but not readily understood, perhaps unknown, -elsewhere. For instance, the native southerner “reckons” and “don’t -guess,” whereas the Yankee “to the manner born” does not “reckon,” but -“guesses” <i>à tort et à travers</i>. As for the western dialect, it -is said that three elements enter into its constitution, <i>viz.</i>, -the mining, the gambling and the cowboy element, a rich vein of -billingsgate running through each. An effort has been made by our -writers of fiction to register and record the salient features of these -respective dialects incidentally in their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</span> stories, but the shades -and gradations of speech are not easy to reflect and preserve on the -printed page with the corresponding local color. Hence the work has -been but partially done, and nowhere with complete success.</p> - -<p>We Americans are far less trammeled by dialectal inconveniences and -perplexities, however, than are the English people. For in Great -Britain there is much less uniformity of speech than with us, and the -difference between the language of a Scotchman and that of a Devonshire -man is almost infinitely greater than the difference between any two -American dialects. But the dissimilarity of the British dialects is -historic and dates back from time immemorial. The story of Caxton, the -first English printer, is well known, how the good merchant from a -southern shire, when he inquired for eggs of a good wife in a northern -shire, could not make himself understood, his southern dialect being -mistaken for French. To be sure, the dialectal differences are not so -great to-day as they were in those remote times, largely as the result -of the printing-press Caxton set up in Westminster. But even yet the -differences between the dialects of the extreme parts of the British -Isles is so pronounced as to be a barrier to complete interchange of -thought.</p> - -<p>It appears from the foregoing that the indictment of corrupting the -English language which certain British critics have brought in against -the American people is not a true bill, since no count has been -established. Our British critics seem loath to acknowledge any American -rights in our common language.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</span> Americans have as much right to -enrich the English vocabulary with useful words as the English people -themselves. We also have as just a claim as they to revive and preserve -an obsolescent phrase or idiom. Because a given English word is no -longer in use and esteem in England, but is recognized as standard -usage in the United States, it does not follow that it is not good -English. The number of those using the English language in America far -exceeds the population of England, and the English speech is just as -vigorous and virile in America as it is in the parent country. Indeed, -it has given indubitable proof of its vitality and vigor on American -lips by adapting itself to the infinite variety of new conditions in -this new country and by the added flexibility, strength and richness -as exhibited in its augmented vocabulary. English now is the language -of the American people as well as of the English people. It is, -therefore, no longer proper or scientific to speak of the queen’s or -of the king’s English. Such a phrase is really an anachronism in the -twentieth century, when the English-speaking subjects of King Edward -are numerically inferior to those not owing allegiance to Britain’s -sovereign, who speak the same tongue. Moreover, it is manifestly not in -keeping with the eternal fitness of things, as well as unscientific, -for our British kith and kin to stigmatize an idiom or a phrase in good -American usage as a provincialism simply because it is not current in -Great Britain. The Britons have no more right to attempt to prescribe -and limit the growth of the English tongue than we have. Nor do -they enjoy an exclusive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</span> prerogative of determining whether a given -expression, be it a new coinage or a survival from a former period, -shall live and flourish or decline and perish in the English tongue. -No sovereign, no nation can determine this, either by decree or by -statute. The most that the British can say in derogation of an alleged -Americanism is that it is current only in America and is not authorized -by British usage. But this does not make it un-English, if it bears the -American sign manual.</p> - -<p>It is perfectly absurd for the British critics to condemn Americanisms -offhand and to attempt to read them out of the language, simply because -they are not in accord with British usage. In so doing they give proof -of their insularity and fail to exhibit a spirit of liberality and -sweet reasonableness. Indeed, they seem disposed, at all events, to -take themselves too seriously as guardians of the English language. It -is well enough for a critic to throw his influence on the side of the -preservation of the purity and propriety of speech. But it is sheer -folly to allow one’s pedantry to go to such a length as Malherbe, that -“tyrant of words and syllables,” who on his death-bed angrily rebuked -his nurse for the solecisms of her language, exclaiming in extenuation -of his act, “Sir, I will defend to my very last gasp the purity of the -French language.” It is related of him that he was so fatal a precisian -in the choice of words that he spent three years in composing an ode on -the death of a friend’s wife, and when at last the ode was completed, -his friend had married again, and the purist had only his labor for -his pains. Now<span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</span> your true British pedant seems to think it his bounden -duty to reject summarily every word or expression which does not bear -the pure English hall-mark, and that as for Americanisms they are -an abomination which must inevitably work the speedy corruption and -ultimate decadence of the noble English tongue. Such an one, whether -from his precisianism or his prejudice, fails utterly to recognize in -Americanisms conclusive evidence of the inherent potency, vigor and -vitality of the English language on American lips.</p> - - -<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> See <a href="#A_QUESTION_OF_PREFERENCE_IN_ENGLISH_SPELLING">A Question of Preference in English Spelling</a>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> See <a href="#VULGARISMS_WITH_A_PEDIGREE">Vulgarisms With A Pedigree</a>.</p> - -</div> -</div> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="WHAT_IS_SLANG">WHAT IS SLANG?</h2> -</div> - - -<p>To the purist slang is an unmitigated evil which makes for the gradual -corruption and decadence of our vernacular. The pedant who is a -martinet regards all slang with absolute contempt and abhors its use, -because he believes slang spells deterioration for our noble tongue. -Such an one takes his self-appointed guardianship of the language very -seriously and deems it his bounden duty as a curator of our English -speech, not only himself to spurn the use of slang, but also to inveigh -against all those who employ it habitually or occasionally. The baneful -influence of slang, he tells us, is sweeping like a mighty tidal wave -over the English language, debasing it and corrupting its very sources.</p> - -<p>Nor is the precisionist alone in entertaining this alarming view. For -many others who are not sticklers for strict propriety and correctness -of speech share, to some extent, the same opinion, although they feel -no special concern as to the final outcome. However, it is reassuring -to reflect that the best-informed among us and those whose thorough -knowledge entitles them to speak with authority do not take so -gloomy and pessimistic a view of the future of the English language. -They inform us that the fears of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</span> the pedants and pedagogues—the -half-educated—are never destined to be realized.</p> - -<p>“Strictly speaking,” says Professor Lounsbury, than whom there is -no higher authority in America on the history of English, “there is -no such thing as a language becoming corrupt. It is an instrument -which will be just what those who use it choose to make it. The words -that constitute it have no real significance of their own. It is -the meaning men put into them that gives them all the efficacy they -possess. Language does nothing more than reflect the character and the -characteristics of those who speak it. It mirrors their thoughts and -feelings, their passions and prejudices, their hopes and aspirations, -their aims, whether high or low. In the mouth of the bombastic it -will be inflated; in the mouth of the illiterate it will be full of -vulgarisms; in the mouth of the precise it will be formal and pedantic. -The history of language is the history of corruptions—using that -term in the sense in which it is constantly employed by those who are -stigmatizing by it the new words and phrases and constructions to which -they take exception. Every one of us is to-day employing expressions -which either outrage the rules of strict grammar, or disregard the -principles of analogy, or belong by their origin to what we now deem -the worst sort of vulgarisms. These so-called corruptions are found -everywhere in the vocabulary, and in nearly all the parts of speech.”</p> - -<p>Yet the feeling of the pedants and purists reflects the traditional -attitude of professional men of letters in respect to the so-called -corruptions that have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</span> been creeping into English during the last few -centuries. It may be worth while to give some of the utterances of -our representative English authors on this subject, showing how great -solicitude they felt for the purity of our language in consequence of -the increasing slang introduced into English. But before doing this, -let us make a brief digression, in order to discuss what is meant by -slang, which appears to be the source of the alleged corruptions of our -speech.</p> - -<p>In the first place one must differentiate slang from cant. It is -evident, on a careful analysis, that much of the reputed slang now -current is really cant, not slang, in the proper sense of the term. -Both cant and slang are closely allied and have a kindred origin. This -is the reason for the confusion of the two in the popular mind.</p> - -<p>Cant is the language of a certain class or sect of people. It is the -phraseology, the dialect, so to say, of a certain craft or profession -and is not readily understood save by the members of the craft -concerned. It may be perfectly correct according to the rules of -grammar, but it is not perfectly intelligible and is not understood -by the people. It is an esoteric language which only the initiated -fully comprehend and are familiar with. For example, the jargon of -thieves is called cant, as is also the jargon of professional gamblers. -Slang, on the other hand, belongs to no particular class. It is a -collection of words and phrases, borrowed from whatever source, which -everybody is acquainted with and readily understands. It is not uncouth -gibberish intelligible<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</span> only to a few. It is composed of colloquialisms -everywhere current, but homely and not refined enough to be admitted -into polite speech. Such expressions may be allowed a place in certain -departments of literature, as familiar and humorous writing, but they -are objectionable in grave and serious composition and speech.</p> - -<p>Now, slang is reputed to have had its origin in cant, specifically -“thieves’ Latin,” as the cant of this vagabond class is called. Indeed, -this appears to have been the only meaning of slang till probably the -second quarter of the last century. In “Red Gauntlet,” published in -1824, Scott refers to certain cant words and “thieves’ Latin called -slang”; and the great romancer seems to have been fully aware that he -was using a rather unknown term which required a gloss. Sometime during -the middle of the last century, so Professor Brander Matthews informs -us, slang lost this narrow limitation and came to signify a word or -phrase used with a meaning not recognized in polite letters, either -because it had just been invented or because it had passed out of -memory. If it is true that slang had its beginning in the <i>argot</i> -of thieves, it soon lost all association with its vulgar source, and -polite slang to-day bears hardly a remote suggestion of the lingo of -this disreputable class. In so short a period—but little more than -a half century—has the word, as well as the thing it signifies, -separated itself from its unsavory early association and worked its way -up into good society.</p> - -<p>Of slang, however, there are several kinds. There is a slang attached -to certain different professions<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</span> and classes of society, such as -college slang, political slang and racing slang. But it must be borne -in mind that this differentiation has reference to the origin of the -slang in the cant of these respective professions. It is of the nature -of slang to circulate more or less freely among all classes of society. -Yet there are several kinds of slang corresponding to the several -classes of society, such as vulgar and polite, to mention only two -general classes. Now, it is true of all slang, as a rule, that it is -the result of an effort to express an idea in a more vigorous, piquant -and terse manner than standard usage ordinarily admits. In proof of -this it will suffice to cite <i>awfully</i> for <i>very</i>, employed -by every school-girl as “awfully cute”; <i>peach</i> or <i>daisy</i> -for something or some one especially attractive or admirable, as -“she’s a peach”; <i>a walk-over</i> for any easy victory, <i>a dead -cinch</i> for a surety, and the like. But it is not necessary to -multiply examples of a mode of expression which is perfectly familiar -to all. Every man’s vocabulary contains slang terms and phrases, some -more than others. Often the slang consists of words in good social -standing which are arbitrarily misapplied. For although much current -slang is of vulgar origin and bears upon its face the bend sinister -of its vulgarity, still some of it is of good birth and is held in -repute by writers and speakers even who are punctilious as to their -English. Some slang expressions are of the nature of metaphors, and -are highly figurative. Such are <i>to kick the bucket</i>, <i>to pass -in your checks</i>, <i>to hold up</i>, <i>to pull the wool over your -eyes</i>, <i>to talk through your hat</i>, <i>to fire out</i>, <i>to -go back on</i>, <i>to make<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</span> yourself solid with</i>, <i>to have a jag -on</i>, <i>to be loaded</i>, <i>to freeze on to</i>, <i>to freeze -out</i>, <i>to bark up the wrong tree</i>, <i>don’t monkey with the -buzz-saw</i>, and <i>in the soup</i>. But of the different kinds of -slang and of its vivid and picturesque character more anon.</p> - -<p>Let us now, after this digression as to what constitutes slang, return -to the former question of the historical aspect of slang, which -was engaging our consideration. Though the name is modern, slang -itself is, in reality, of venerable age, and was recognized in the -plebeian speech of Petronius, the Beau Brummel of Nero’s time, whose -“Trimalchio’s Dinner” is replete with the choicest slang of the Roman -“smart set.” The humorous pages of François Rabelais, also, have a -copious sprinkling of slang expressions and invite comparison with the -productions of some of our own American humorists, who depend not a -little upon the vigorous western slang to enhance the effectiveness of -their humor. But it is more to the point to cite historical instances -among our English authors, especially those who set themselves the -burdensome, yet thankless, task of striving to preserve the primitive -purity of our speech.</p> - -<p>The greatest representative of this number in English literature, -excepting Addison, is Swift, the famous dean of <abbr title="saint">St.</abbr> Patrick’s. He was -impelled by a desire amounting almost to a passion, it is said, to hand -down the English language to his successors with its vaunted purity -and beauty absolutely unimpaired. In an essay in <i>The Tattler</i> -of September 28, 1710, he gives vehement utterance to his feelings -on the shocking carelessness and woeful lack of taste<span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</span> in the use of -the vernacular exhibited by his contemporaries. He affirms that the -conscienceless, unrefined writers of his day were utterly indifferent -as to the effect of their deplorable practice upon the future of -the English tongue and brought forward, in proof of his contention, -numerous examples of solecisms which he alleged were constantly -employed, to the corruption and deterioration of the language.</p> - -<p>Swift made a threefold division of the barbarous neologisms which were -introduced in his day. It is interesting to observe his several classes -of these locutions that were contrary to all rules of propriety. The -first class was made up of abbreviations in which only the first -syllable or part of the word had to do duty for the entire word, as -<i>phiz</i> for <i>physiognomy</i>, <i>hyp</i> for <i>hypochondria</i>, -<i>mob</i> for <i>mobile vulgus</i>, <i>poz</i> for <i>positive</i>, -<i>rep</i> for <i>reputation</i>, <i>incog</i> for <i>incognito</i> -and <i>plenipo</i> for <i>plenipotentiary</i>. The second class -included polysyllables, such as <i>speculations</i>, <i>battalions</i>, -<i>ambassadors</i>, <i>palisadoes</i>, <i>operations</i>, -<i>communications</i>, <i>preliminaries</i>, <i>circumvallations</i> -and other ungraceful, mouth-filling words, which Swift alleged were -introduced into the language as a result of the war of the Spanish -succession then in progress. His third class embraced those terms which -were, to quote his own words, “invented by certain pretty fellows, -such as <i>banter</i>, <i>bamboozle</i>, <i>country put</i> and -<i>kidney</i>.” “I have done my utmost,” he pathetically remarks, “for -some years past to stop the progress of <i>mob</i> and <i>banter</i>, -but have been plainly borne down by numbers and betrayed by those who -promised to assist me.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</span></p> - -<p>Two years later Swift addressed a public letter to the Earl of Oxford, -the Lord High Treasurer, deprecating the approaching decadence of the -English tongue and earnestly urging some sort of concerted action for -correcting and improving the vernacular. The language, the letter -recited, was very imperfect and daily deteriorating. The period of its -greatest purity, Swift went on to say, was that from the beginning -of Queen Elizabeth’s reign to the breaking out of the civil war of -1642. His perturbed mind was filled with mingled feelings of grief and -indignation as he pointed out in this letter the growing corruptions -then so apparent even in the writings of the best authors, and more -especially as he was compelled to admit that not only the fanatics of -the commonwealth, but also the court itself, had contributed to bring -about the sad condition of the language.</p> - -<p>It is not worth while to speak in detail of Swift’s fanciful and -quixotic scheme for purging the language and keeping it pure. But it is -interesting to observe, in passing, that his urgent appeal to the prime -minister to become the guardian and curator of the English tongue was -utterly fruitless and, what is more, that his direful predictions as -to the speedy decay of English have never been verified. Furthermore, -some of those very neologisms which Swift criticized so unrelentingly -are now recognized in polite speech and bear the stamp of approval as -the <i>jus et norma loquendi</i>. Of his second class of barbarisms -well-nigh all are to-day accepted as standard English and are without a -trace of slang. With his first and third classes, however, fate has not -dealt so<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</span> kindly, for these words are still under condemnation, save -<i>mob</i>, which has forced its way to recognition in good usage as a -necessary term.</p> - -<p>Toward the end of the eighteenth century appeared another champion of -the preservation of the purity and propriety of the English speech. -This was James Beattie, a learned Scotchman. For some reason or other, -the Scotch seemed extremely solicitous about the English language -during the eighteenth century—a solicitude that was not appreciated by -the British lexicographers and least of all by <abbr title="doctor">Dr.</abbr> Johnson. In a letter -written in 1790, Beattie took occasion to speak of the “new-fangled -phrases and barbarous idioms that are now so much affected by those who -form their style from political pamphlets and those pretended speeches -in Parliament that appear in the newspapers.” “Should this jargon -continue to gain ground among us,” he assures his correspondent, in -a doleful mood, “English literature will go to ruin. During the last -twenty years, especially since the breaking out of the American war, it -has made alarming progress.... If I live to execute what I purpose on -the writings and genius of Addison, I shall at least enter my protest -against the practise; and by exhibiting a copious specimen of the new -phraseology, endeavor to make my reader set his heart against it.”</p> - -<p>In order to emphasize the damage resulting to the language from the -neologisms which were creeping in, Beattie conceived the clever plan of -privately printing a series of “Dialogues of the Dead,” which purported -to be the production of his son deceased<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</span> a few years before. The -most interesting of these “Dialogues” is the report of an imaginary -conversation between Dean Swift, a bookseller and Mercury, in which -the worthy dean expresses himself as greatly shocked and disgusted at -the outlandish English used by the bookseller; and he calls on Mercury -to translate the <i>patois</i> into good English. In response to -Swift’s earnest request, Mercury says among other things: “Instead of -<i>life</i>, <i>new</i>, <i>wish for</i>, <i>take</i>, <i>plunge</i>, -etc., you must say <i>existence</i>, <i>novel</i>, <i>desiderate</i>, -<i>capture</i>, <i>ingurgitate</i>, etc., as—a fever put an end to -his existence.... Instead of a <i>new</i> fashion, you will do well -to say a <i>novel</i> fashion.... You must on no account speak of -<i>taking</i> the enemy’s ships, towns, guns or baggage: it must be -<i>capturing</i>.” Other words which were censured as improper by -this phantom critic were <i>unfriendly</i> and <i>hostile</i> for -which <i>inimical</i> was recommended; <i>sort</i> and <i>kind</i>, -in place of each of which <i>description</i> was to be used. Some of -the locutions then in vogue which especially offended good taste, -according to Beattie, were <i>to make up one’s mind</i>, <i>to scout -the idea</i>, <i>to go to prove</i>, <i>line of conduct</i>, <i>in -contemplation</i>, and <i>for the future</i>. Furthermore, the frequent -use of <i>feel</i>, which threatened to supplant the verb <i>to be</i> -in such an idiom as “I am sick” and drive it from its rightful domain, -aroused the learned Scotch purist’s apprehension as to the final -outcome, as did also the growing tendency to employ <i>truism</i> for -<i>truth</i>, <i>committal</i> for <i>commitment</i>, <i>pugilist</i> -for <i>boxer</i>, <i>approval</i> for <i>approbation</i> and -<i>agriculturist</i> for <i>husbandman</i>.</p> - -<p>No doubt Beattie believed with Swift that the influx<span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</span> of such pedantic -Latinisms as <i>desiderate</i> and <i>ingurgitate</i> and the like -would result in impairing the purity of our speech and perhaps hasten -its declension. Nor did he look with favor on the growing fashion -to use monosyllables, though of pure Saxon origin, so much affected -by some writers during that period. Both of these tendencies were -of temporary vogue; yet they served to arouse the fears of the -ultra-conservatives as to the fate of the English language. One might -suppose that, dreading the then threatening invasion of Latin terms -as they clearly did, they would have hailed with delight the revival -of Saxon monosyllables as a favorable offset. But even this did not -allay their fears and was rather interpreted as a harmful symptom. -Time, however, has demonstrated fully that the fears of those purists -were unwarranted and that their dire predictions as to the future -of English were founded on a very imperfect knowledge of linguistic -development. A cursory examination of Beattie’s lists reveals the fact -that of the verbal innovations and offending phrases which he put under -the ban, the genius of the language has adopted not a few, and that, -too, without impairing in the least the purity of the English tongue -or its capacity for expressing the finest shades of thought. So far -from losing, the language has gained in its capacity for expressing -nice distinctions of thought and feeling, as a result of its marvelous -absorptive power.</p> - -<p>It has thus been shown that in the eighteenth century there were not -wanting those—purists or what not—who entertained and expressed -no little concern<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</span> as to the ultimate effect upon our speech of -the multitude of neologisms and asserted improprieties that were -introduced. Did space permit, utterances of a similar character by -nineteenth-century writers, from Walter Savage Landon down to critics -of far less renown, might be brought forward as evidence to show that -the watch-dogs of our speech were as numerous and as alert as ever. Nor -is their tribe yet extinct. Ever and anon, even in the last few years, -some prophet of evil is heard to raise his voice in vigorous protest -against the increasing use of slang as foreboding the decadence of our -vernacular. But the warning is not heeded; and the English language, -like the real living thing that it is, goes on developing according to -the subtle principles of speech development.</p> - -<p>The laws governing speech development are very imperfectly known. -Consequently none can foretell how a given tongue may develop. The -language appears to be independent of one’s individual habit of -speech; yet it is the sum total of the individual habits of speech -that constitutes the language. No man makes a language; no man can -make it. Not even the greatest monarch on earth can, by decree or -fiat, predetermine the course of development of the language of his -subjects. Language is an involuntary product and does not result from -any determined concert of action. Yet it is modified and changed by -various influences. As long as it is alive and spoken, it is constantly -changing and will not remain “fixed” according to the whimsical desire -of the purist. When it ceases to be used upon the lips of the people as -a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</span> medium of communication of their thoughts and feelings, then it will -cease to change and grow and will become “fixed.” But when a language -is no longer spoken, it is characterized as dead. It is in this sense -that we call Latin and Greek dead languages, although they survive in -modern Italian and modern Greek, respectively.</p> - -<p>It follows, therefore, that it is the height of folly for any one, -no matter how highly esteemed as an author, to attempt the rôle of -reformer of the speech. Such an one is destined to have only his labor -for his pains. He can not directly purge the language of its neologisms -and improprieties of usage. These violations of standard usage which -offend good taste, strange as it may seem, furnish indubitable evidence -of the vitality of the speech; for from these contraband expressions -come the new terms and idioms which are to take the place of the -obsolete words which drop out of the vocabulary.</p> - -<p>Viewed in this light, slang assumes a different aspect, and it -becomes evident that it performs a certain necessary function in the -development of language. It is no longer proper, therefore, to refer to -slang with supreme contempt and to condemn it offhand as an unmitigated -evil which ought to be forthwith extirpated from the language. For, as -an eminent authority has observed, slang is the recruiting ground of -language and is, in reality, idiom in the making. It has been pointed -out how some of the slang expressions of the eighteenth century which -fell under the censure of Swift and Beattie are now found upon the -pages of our best authors and are<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</span> heard upon the lips of our most -polished and elegant speakers. Since this is true, no verbal critic can -at the present time affirm of a polite slang expression now in vogue -that it is destined never to work its way up into good usage, or of a -foreign locution that it will never be domiciled in our speech. Nor can -he determine, in the case of a new coinage which is a candidate for -adoption into the literary language, just when it is taken over from -that doubtful borderland between slang and standard usage.</p> - -<p>Seeing, then, that slang really has a function to perform in the growth -of speech and, therefore, that it is worthy of serious consideration, -let us examine some of our modern English slang and study for a short -while its origin and history.</p> - -<p>Professor Brander Matthews, in an admirable paper on the subject, -divides slang into four classes, and we can hardly do better than to -follow his general classification. The first class embraces those -vulgar cant expressions which are the survivals of thieves’ Latin or -<abbr title="saint">St.</abbr> Giles’ Greek, and those uncouth, inelegant terms which constitute -the vernacular of the lower orders of society. This is the kind of -slang heard in the police courts, the kind the newspaper reporter -too frequently resorts to, in order to give spice to his account. It -has been introduced into literature by some of our recent novelists, -notably Dickens. The second class of slang is not quite so coarse, -and includes those ephemeral phrases and catchwords which have a -fleeting popularity and which, because they meet no real need, are -soon forgotten utterly. They live but a day and pass away, leaving -behind<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</span> no trace of their existence. Of this class are campaign slogans -and such inane expressions as <i>where did you get that hat?</i> -<i>chestnut</i>, <i>rot</i>, <i>I should smile</i> and many others -equally stupid. It is these two classes of slang that have brought the -term into disrepute and merited contempt. For this sort of slang is -very offensive to delicate ears and justly deserves the speedy oblivion -which overtakes it.</p> - -<p>The other two classes of slang, on the contrary, are of a finer -type and have a reason for their being, something to commend them -to popular favor. It may well be that from this type new idioms and -phrases are recruited into our literary language. However, a certain -stigma attaches to this better variety of slang, also, in the judgment -of many, simply because it is slang. Yet it is heard on the lips of -educated and cultured speakers, much to the disgust of those who -are fastidious as to the propriety of usage. When it is employed in -the written speech, the more careful writers brand it with inverted -commas, the barbarian earmarks which attest its social inferiority. -Occasionally a bold writer like <abbr title="mister">Mr.</abbr> Howells breaks down these barriers -which convention has set up and gives a polite slang expression the -stamp of his approval and authority. In this way these social outcasts, -the pariahs of our literary speech, are now and then elevated to the -dignity and rank of good society, and finally establish themselves in -standard English.</p> - -<p>Of these two classes of slang serving some useful end as feeders to the -vocabulary and idiom of our language by which its wasting energy is to -be repaired,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</span> the first embraces those archaic phrases and terms which -are revived after long disuse and again brought into service. Restored -after several generations of neglect, they now appear to be entirely -new coinages and are only received as other probationers. The second -class is composed of absolutely new words and expressions, frequently -the product of a happy invention and, generally, racy and forceful. As -instances of the first class may be mentioned <i>to fire</i>, in the -sense to expel forcibly or dismiss, <i>bloody</i> in the sense of very, -<i>deck</i> in the sense <i>pack</i> of cards and similar historic -Elizabethan revivals. Such locutions have a good literary pedigree, -now and then boasting the authority of Shakespearean usage. But this -is not always apparent and such long-obsolete phrases are, therefore, -accounted mere <i>parvenus</i>. For example, in King Henry VI. we read:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Whiles he thought to steal the single ten,</span><br /> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">The king was slily fingered from the deck.—3 Pr.,v.1.</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>and again in Shakespeare’s 144th sonnet:</p> - -<p class="poetry p0"> -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">Till my good angel fire my bad one out.</span><br /> -</p> - -<p>The vulgar <i>bloody</i>, more common in England than in America, is an -inheritance from the classic age of Dryden, who even uses the coarse -phrase “bloody drunk” in his Prologue to “Southerne’s Disappointment.” -Swift furnishes a slight variation from this in “bloody sick,” -occurring in his “Poisoning of Curll.” The more fruitful province of -polite slang<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</span> is the second class, which is made up of the clever -productions of the present age. It is from the best of these coinages, -above all, that the worn-out energies of our vocabulary and idiom are -repaired. These raw recruits of slang are severely disciplined and -tested by hard preliminary service. If in this test an individual slang -expression proves useful and is seen to fill an actual need, it is -admitted eventually into the fellowship of standard English. But if, on -the other hand, its utility is not established, it is relegated to the -limbo of useless inventions where oblivion soon engulfs it.</p> - -<p>Let us now review a few specimens of the best type of our modern -slang. But perhaps it is safer simply to mention the alleged -slang and not undertake to decide which of these expressions are -slang and which standard English. For it is no easy matter to -trace the line of cleavage between the legitimate technicality -of a given craft or profession and polite slang. For instance, -are <i>corner</i>, <i>bull</i>, <i>bear</i> and <i>slump</i>, so -familiar in financial parlance, mere technical phraseology or slang? -How is one to classify such political terms as <i>mugwump</i>, -<i>buncombe</i>, <i>gerrymander</i>, <i>scalawag</i>, <i>henchman</i>, -<i>log-rolling</i>, <i>pulling the wires</i>, <i>machine</i>, -<i>slate</i> and <i>to take the stump</i>? If these are mere -technical terms, surely <i>boycott</i>, <i>cab</i>, <i>humbug</i>, -<i>boom</i> and <i>blizzard</i> have passed beyond the narrow bounds -of technicality and are verging on that dubious borderland between -slang and standard English. Furthermore, are <i>swell</i>, <i>fad</i>, -<i>crank</i>, <i>spook</i> and <i>stogy</i> to be considered slang or -good English? Each of these terms is supported by the authority of -some of our<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</span> best writers. <i>Swell</i>, to cite only one example, is -bolstered up by the authority of Thackeray, who in his “Adventures of -Philip” writes: “They narrate to him the advent and departure of the -lady in the swell carriage, the mother of the young swell with the -flower in his buttonhole.” Again, how is one to regard <i>fake</i>, -<i>splurge</i>, <i>sand</i>, <i>swagger</i>, <i>blooming</i> (idiot), -<i>to go it blind</i>, <i>to catch on</i>, and that vast host of -similar racy and vivid phrases which, if slang, still do duty for -classic English in common parlance?</p> - -<p>A glance at some of our slang idioms shows that they are borrowed -from the cant of various crafts and callings. Some are borrowed from -the technical vocabulary of the stage, some are taken over from the -phraseology of sporting life, while some bear the stamp of various -other vocations. Take as an illustration <i>fake</i>, or, better still, -<i>greenhorn</i>, which has forced its way to recognition in standard -English. At first <i>greenhorn</i> was applied figuratively to a cow -or deer or other horned animal when its horns are immature. In the -“Towneley Mysteries” it is applied to an ox, for example. Later it was -extended to signify an inexperienced person, or one who, from lack of -acquaintance with the ways of the world, is easily imposed upon. The -former application where the term was used in allusion to an immature -horned animal is a legitimate metaphor. The latter use when applied to -an inexperienced person was doubtless recognized as an extension of the -metaphor and as slang. But the word filled a need in the vocabulary -and was at length admitted into the guild of good usage. Another -illustration is furnished by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</span> <i>mascot</i>, a recent importation from -the French. This word originated in gambler’s cant and signified a -talisman, a fetish, something designed to bestow good luck upon its -possessor. The term, despite its unsavory association, somehow has -commended itself to popular favor and now seems not to offend the most -refined taste. <i>Slump</i>, though not so hackneyed, may serve as an -example in point also. As a provincialism this word denotes soft swampy -ground, or melting snow and slush. Later by transferred meaning it came -to characterize in the financial world the melting away of prices, as -a slump in the market—a vivid picture which is more interesting as a -linguistic phenomenon than as an actual fact.</p> - -<p>The history of slang teaches that words, like people, may be divided -into two general classes, high and low, or refined and uncouth. “In -language as in life,” as Professor Dowden puts it, “there is, so to -speak, an aristocracy and a commonalty, words with a heritage of -dignity, words which have been ennobled, and a rabble of words which -are excluded from positions of honor and trust.” Now, some writers -select only the choice and noble words to convey their ideas, leaving -the coarse and vulgar words, terms without a pedigree, as it were, in -the bottom of the inkhorn, for those who desire them. Other writers -again have less cultured tastes and do not scruple to employ now and -then plebeian words, to set forth their thoughts and feelings.</p> - -<p>One might suppose on first blush that the dictionary ought to be a -safe guide in the choice of words. A moment’s reflection, however, -is sufficient to convince<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</span> one that the dictionary can not be relied -upon always for this desired knowledge. It is the lexicographer’s -office to make a complete register of the vocabulary of the language; -and so, to make his work exhaustive, he frequently records many slang -words in his dictionary. Yet the practise of our dictionary-makers, -it must be admitted, varies widely in this respect, some being far -more exclusive than others. Our former lexicographers, as for instance -Doctor Johnson, exercised a stricter censorship than is the custom -at present. But it is not correct always to infer, in the case of an -unrecorded word of questionable usage, that the author excluded it of -set purpose. It may possibly be omitted from oversight. It seems to be -the custom of our lexicographers now to make as complete a record as -possible of all polite slang, but to brand it “slang.” This plan is, -of course, altogether distasteful to the pedants and pedagogues who -make a fruitless effort to curb and check the vocabulary of a language -by rejecting all words of questionable usage. Whatever is not in -harmony with established usage, whatever is not authorized by standard -speech, the pedants and half-educated utterly reject. Now, heretofore -our dictionary-makers have not been entirely above and beyond this -narrow and circumscribed view. It was this fact that prompted Lowell, -in the preface to his famous “Biglow Papers,” to express himself in -these vigorous words: “There is death in the dictionary; and where -language is too strictly limited by convention, the ground for -expression to grow in is limited<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</span> also, and we get a <i>potted</i> -literature—Chinese dwarfs instead of healthy trees.”</p> - -<p>The truth is, it does not fall legitimately within the province of the -lexicographer to settle the question whether a polite slang term of -recognized fitness and utility should be deemed good English or not. No -man, however competent a scholar he may be, has the right to determine -the growth and development of our language. Yet such a practise means -this in the last analysis. There are not a few words and idioms in -English that have neither logic nor reason to commend them, but are -the product of analogy, as <i>it</i>, <i>its</i> and <i>you</i>, -instead of the strictly correct <i>hit</i>, <i>his</i> and <i>ye</i>, -to use a familiar example; and yet these analogical formations, which -at first were mere slang, long ago drove our proper pronouns from the -field. This change took place in the last two or three centuries, and -that, too, in the very face of the vaunted authority of Shakespeare -and the King James Version. No doubt the pedants and purists opposed -this change as utterly illogical and contrary to the natural order of -development and growth of our English speech; but they were gradually -borne down. It is the vast body of those who use the language, the -people, not the lexicographers and scholars solely or chiefly, who are -the final arbiters in a matter of this kind. It is the law of speech as -registered in the usage of those who employ the language that decides -ultimately whether a given phrase shall survive or perish; and this -is done so unconsciously withal that the people are not aware that -they are sealing the destiny of some particular vocable. This<span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</span> silent, -indefinable, resistless force we call the genius of the language.</p> - -<p>It is hoped that the spirit of this paper will not be misunderstood. -The article, let it be distinctly and emphatically stated, is not -intended as a brief for slang—far from it. It is written simply to -call attention anew to the fact that slang is not to be absolutely -condemned as the main source of corruption of our speech, as some -assert, but that, contrariwise, it is an important factor in the growth -of our vernacular and serves—at least, the best of it—a useful -purpose in repairing the resulting waste which necessarily occurs in -English as in every spoken language.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</span></p> - -<h2 class="nobreak" id="STANDARD_ENGLISHHOW_IT_AROSE_AND_HOW_IT_IS_MAINTAINED">STANDARD ENGLISH—HOW IT AROSE AND HOW IT IS MAINTAINED.</h2> -</div> - - -<p>Much is said and written nowadays as to the prevalence of slang and bad -English. It is a matter of common regret both in academic circles and -elsewhere that our English tongue is not now spoken and written with -its traditional purity and propriety. As to the truth of this complaint -there is probably some ground for doubt, but it is not proposed here -to discuss this question. The mere fact of the existence of slang and -bad English implies that there is a norm, a standard of propriety of -English speech, to which polite usage ever aims to conform. It is this -standard that ratifies a given idiom or locution and stamps it with -the hall-mark of propriety, thus establishing its usage as approved. -Any signal departure from this standard is at once branded a solecism -and consequently recognized as a provincialism, or slang. It is here -proposed to inquire what constitutes standard English, how it arose, -how it is maintained.</p> - -<p>The science of language comes to our aid in this inquiry and teaches -us how a language grows and develops. Before the dawn of this new -science it was supposed that the standard speech was determined by -court usage as reflected in the language of the ruling<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</span> class and the -courtiers. This select body of people was believed to set the fashion -in speech, as in other things, and the educated and cultured of the -country were thought to follow their lead as a matter of course. The -common people, according to this theory, accepted as final the standard -set by the nobility, and all divergences therefrom were held to be -the result of ignorance. Not only was the court dialect regarded as -indicating absolute propriety of usage, but it was supposed to be the -original form of the vernacular speech, which the masses were expected -to imitate as perfectly as they could, in their habits of speaking -and writing. The court itself, likewise holding this view, did not -hesitate to condemn and stigmatize every departure in speech from the -received dialect as a glaring solecism which made for the corruption -and ultimate disintegration of the language.</p> - -<p>This is now an exploded theory. Modern philology has demonstrated -beyond a doubt that such an assumption is utterly false and untrue -to nature. For philology teaches us clearly that the urban dialect, -far from being the original tongue of which the rural dialects are -mere corruptions, was itself once only a provincial, barbarous form -of speech,—a lingo just as primitive and just as uncultivated as -any of its fellows,—and that its supremacy is the result, not of -any intrinsic superiority over its rivals, but of the political -predominance of those who employed it as their vernacular. Those who -used the urban dialect, by dint of their own intelligence and skill, -surpassed their rivals in the race for the primacy and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</span> were the -first, therefore, to establish the ascendency of their community. -Their supremacy once established, the inhabitants of the more highly -organized community proceeded at once to impose their rule upon their -weaker neighbors. The latter, being unable to resist the more powerful -and resourceful community, soon forfeited their independence and lost -their identity and were gradually absorbed. It is thus that political -pre-eminence of a primitive community over its rivals paves the way for -the growth and development of its speech, which is gradually extended -over the conquered until it finally supplants its fellows and itself -becomes supreme as the accepted language of the victorious and the -vanquished alike.</p> - -<p>The philologists explain the several stages of the development -of a language, distinctly marking off each, from the crude local -<i>patois</i> to the highly developed and polished speech of a -cultured nation. The primitive tongue of a local tribe is termed a -<i>patois</i>, a rudimentary speech ill adapted to the communication -of the simplest ideas. If a <i>patois</i> grows and develops so as -to become available in vocabulary and syntax for the expression of -thought, it is called a dialect. When a local <i>patois</i> advances -to the dialect stage, there is a marked tendency, on the part of those -employing it, to crush out its rivals by conquest and assimilation. -Consequently the triumphant dialect then becomes the only speech of a -linguistic province, and is itself perhaps somewhat modified by the -conflict from which it has emerged victorious.</p> - -<p>Now, there may be several independent linguistic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</span> provinces. If so, -a hard struggle for supremacy follows. Eventually some one of the -provinces succeeds in establishing its political mastery over the -others, and then begins the process of linguistic expansion and -assimilation. Thus the dialect of the most powerful province or -district is at length made the speech of the entire people. In this -manner not only all the local <i>patois</i>, but all the competing -dialects also, are either absorbed, or are crushed out by the dialect -of the dominant political community.</p> - -<p>A striking illustration of this process is furnished in the history -of the development of the Latin tongue. This dominant language which -still survives, more or less disguised, in the speech of a large part -of Europe, as well as in the speech of Latin America, and which has -so generously enriched our own English tongue, as Whitney tells us in -his “Language and the Study of Language,” was the vernacular less than -twenty-five centuries ago, of an insignificant district in central -Italy, the inhabitants of which at that remote day were but little -above savages. History is silent as to when and how this tribe found -their way into that region of the Italian peninsula. Their speech -was only one of a group of related dialects, “descendants and joint -representatives of an older tongue, spoken by the first immigrants, -which had grown apart by the effect of the usual dissimilating -processes.” There still survive remains of at least two of the rival -dialects, Oscan and Umbrian, which throw a flood of light on the -prehistoric period of Italian speech. The Latin dialect was threatened -on the north by the Etruscan, the vernacular of a civilized<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</span> people -dwelling beyond the Tiber; and it was likewise menaced on the south -by the Greek language, spoken by the Hellenic colonies, long before -settled in southern Italy and Sicily. Both of these tongues are -assumed to have been superior in intrinsic character to the crude, -primitive dialect of the early Romans. But the rudimentary Latin speech -spread <i>pari passu</i> with the extension of the Roman dominion. -As the Roman arms brought one Italian district after another under -Roman sway, the tongue of that mighty people grew apace and diffused -itself throughout the whole of Italy, gradually absorbing all the -rival dialects. Finally all the dialects of Italy were forced to -acknowledge the predominance of the speech of the conquering city on -the Tiber,—from the uncultivated Gaulish of the north to the facile -and polished Greek of the south. Thus all Italy came at last to have -one uniform language, to wit, Latin.</p> - -<p>Yet there did not result, after all, absolute uniformity of speech -throughout the whole of Italy. For though the rival dialects had one -by one given place to the triumphant advance of the all-absorbing -Latin, still in the remote rural districts relics of the native local -dialects tenaciously maintained their foothold in the popular speech; -and like paganism before the advance of Christianity, the local -dialects were loth to relinquish their strongholds in the inaccessible -country districts. Traces of the vanquished tongues were still to be -discerned in the varying local dialects throughout the remote parts of -the Italian peninsula. Nor was the common speech of Italy everywhere -current<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</span> the pure classic Latin of Cicero and Vergil. On the contrary, -the vernacular of the ancient Romans, by and large, was a far less -polished and graceful idiom, “containing already the germs of many -of the changes exhibited by the modern Italian and the other Romanic -tongues.”</p> - -<p>A second shining example is found in the history of the rise of the -French language. This marvelously lucid tongue had its origin in a -little island in the Seine, at present the heart of the great city of -Paris. The language of the inhabitants of that tiny isle, to be sure, -was at first a rude lingo no whit superior to the various <i>patois</i> -of Romanized Gaul. But the inhabitants of that vigorous district soon -gained the political ascendency over their neighbors and gradually -extended their speech throughout the whole of <i>Ile-de-France</i>. -The upshot was that the numerous local <i>patois</i> speedily lost -caste, sinking to a lower and lower level, till they all finally -disappeared, and the dialect of Paris came to be recognized as the -official language of the entire central part of France. But there were -also other provinces of France besides that of <i>Ile-de-France</i>. -Normandy, Provence and Burgundy had meantime risen to marked political -distinction, and the speech of each of these provinces in due course -attained to the dignity of a dialect with a considerable body of -literature. But no one dialect was supreme. However, in the process -of time the people of central France established their pre-eminence, -extending their dominion over the entire country. Thus the sister -provinces were, in turn, brought under the sway of the predominant -<i>Ile-de-France</i><span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</span> which imposed its dialect upon its subdued -rivals. In this manner the Parisian dialect spread over the whole of -France and was destined speedily to become the accepted speech of -the country. Naturally enough, as the Parisian dialect gained the -ascendency, the Provençal, the Norman and the Burgundian dialect each -fell into decay and finally ceased to exist as a spoken dialect, being -preserved only in certain literary monuments.</p> - -<p>Now, the Parisian dialect did not attain to the honor of the standard -language of France without a long and hard struggle. During this -struggle the language was in process of development and underwent some -changes by attrition and contact with its strenuous rivals. In the -conflict the Parisian dialect sloughed off some of its unessentials, -its eccentricities of speech in the form of inflexions and syntax and -came forth somewhat simplified in its grammar. At the same time it -borrowed not a few idioms and phrases from its defeated rivals, thus -enriching its vocabulary and simplifying its syntax by contact with the -decadent dialects.</p> - -<p>Thus arose modern French—a language beautifully transparent and -precise and almost as untrammeled by inflections as English is and as -admirably adapted for the conveyance of nice distinctions and fine -shades of thought. It appears, then, that modern French is developed -from one of the pristine provincial dialects which probably enjoyed -no superior advantage over its sister dialects, but which owes its -success as a literary medium to the happy circumstance that it was the -vernacular of the most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</span> important political province. Furthermore, it -is manifest that the Provençal, Norman and Burgundian dialects are in -no sense a corrupt form of the standard speech. They are rather kindred -dialects which by sheer force of political conditions were outstripped -in the race for the distinction of being chosen as the national -language.</p> - -<p>Let us now consider the history of the English language. The -development of the English tongue is quite similar, if not, indeed, -parallel, to the story of Latin and French. It is in order to give here -a brief survey of the origin and development of the English speech.</p> - -<p>In the earliest period of our language it is assumed that there were -numerous <i>patois</i> spoken by the Jutes, the Angles and the Saxons -who had settled in Britain as rovers and adventurers. True, we have -no record preserved of these several <i>patois</i>; but philology -warrants the inference that they existed. In the earliest stage of -the Anglo-Saxon speech of which history furnishes a record, these -various <i>patois</i> had already given rise to some three or four -distinct dialects commonly designated, according to their respective -geographical positions, Kentish, Southern, Midland, and Northern. There -are documents extant of each of these early English dialects which -constitute our Anglo-Saxon literature. Now, each of these dialects -(if Kentish is included in the Southern dialect) marks a separate -period in the political history of Teutonic England. In the northern -part of England, then known as Northumbria, where the Angles settled -after migrating from the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</span> Continent, the Anglian dialect was first -pre-eminent as the literary language. This was during the eighth -century when the leading writers in that dialect were Caedmon and the -Venerable Bede. In those early times the Angles appear to have extended -their control over Mercia, too, even down to the northern banks of the -Thames. However, this district later had a local dialect of its own, -apart from the Northumbrian, and its chief literary monuments are a -translation of the Psalter and a version of Matthew’s Gospel designated -the “Rushworth.” The part of Britain south of the Thames and lying -toward the west was settled by the Saxons. Their dialect which scholars -call the West-Saxon was quite unlike the Anglian dialect; and it is -distinguished above its fellows as the dialect in which the bulk of our -earliest literature is written. The West-Saxon, therefore, from the -grammatical point of view is by far the most important of our early -English dialects, and is recognized by scholars as the standard for -inflection and idiom. But the pre-eminence of West-Saxon was of later -date than that of the Northumbrian dialect. From the death of Bede -in 734 to the accession of King Alfred in 871, it is interesting to -note that no one of the English dialects seems to have been supreme. -However, from the accession of Ecgberht in 802 the West-Saxon had been -gradually gaining its ascendency which was of course completed in the -days of King Alfred. This good king signalized his reign by a great -revival of learning, in which he himself was the leading figure. He -summoned to his court an earnest and enthusiastic body of scholars<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</span> -from various parts of the world, and himself set them a worthy example -of industry and scholarship by translating into the vernacular Pope -Gregory’s “Pastoral Care,” Boethius’s “Consolations of Philosophy” and -Orosius’s “Chronicle.”</p> - -<p>After the death of King Alfred there was a sad decline in literature. -But the prowess and overlordship of Wessex had made the West-Saxon -dialect the standard literary language of England; and it continued -so till the Norman Conquest destroyed the political prestige of that -kingdom and consequently deprived that dialect of its evident advantage -as the official language. While the West-Saxon dialect was recognized, -it is true, as the literary language, still it did not entirely -supplant the Anglian and the Mercian, both of which continued to be -spoken and, to some extent, also written. But it is a significant fact -that the earlier Northumbrian poetry was translated into this southern -speech and is preserved to us only in the West-Saxon version.</p> - -<p>West-Saxon lost its supremacy as the standard language when, as a -result of the Conquest, Norman French was adopted by the ruling class -as the cultivated speech of the realm. Still, “the native tongue,” to -quote Professor Lounsbury (History of the English Language), “continued -to be spoken by the great majority of the population, but it went -out of use as the language of high culture. The educated classes, -whether lay or ecclesiastical, preferred to write either in Latin -or French—the latter steadily tending to become more and more the -language of literature as well as of polite society.” The result<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</span> was -that West-Saxon, being supplanted as the literary language by Norman -French, lost prestige and was reduced ultimately to the level of its -sister dialects, Anglian and Mercian. After the loss of West-Saxon -ascendency no one dialect was again pre-eminent in England till the -fourteenth century. For two centuries prior to that date the several -provincial dialects were employed in their respective territories; -and each had an equal chance of becoming standard English. An author, -therefore, was free to use his own local speech. To be sure, French was -the accepted language at court and in high society; but this foreign -tongue at no time enjoyed such a commanding position as to threaten the -extinction of the native dialects.</p> - -<p>Indeed, the relation of the Norman French to the English dialects -has given rise to so much popular misconception and error that it -seems worth while, at this juncture, to indicate the true relation -explicitly. When the Normans conquered England, as the philologists -tell us, they did not seek to impose their language upon the English -people. Such a policy would have been very unwise for obvious reasons, -and would have produced untold trouble and conflict between the two -races. The Normans did not despise the English tongue. They were -content to let the natives speak their several English dialects just as -before the Conquest. Of course, the Normans retained their own French -<i>patois</i> and had no expectation of abandoning it in favor of -English, as they had once before given up their Scandinavian vernacular -for French. Yet in consequence of the overwhelming<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</span> preponderance of -the English natives over their Norman invaders it was inevitable, in -the event of a struggle for supremacy between the two tongues, that the -French should be forced to the wall. Fortunately, no such conflict was -designed by either race, and it is quite reasonable to suppose that -neither people ever seriously contemplated such a possibility.</p> - -<p>It is evident, then, that the Norman Conquest did not tend to destroy -the English tongue in Britain, as it was once the fashion to teach. The -Norman Conquest did, however, interrupt the normal literary tradition -of the English speech. For at the time of the Battle of Hastings, as -has been intimated, the West-Saxon dialect was easily the foremost -of the English provincial dialects and seemed destined to establish -its claim as being the national speech. But the Conquest interrupted -this natural process and drove West-Saxon from its coign of vantage, -reducing it to the level of the rival provincial dialects. French -being, of course, the language of the court and the official tongue -generally, the West-Saxon dialect no longer offered any special -inducement to intending authors to employ it, as had been the case -ever since the days of King Alfred. Hence writers simply used their -respective local dialects, there being no recognized standard speech.</p> - -<p>Norman French and the several English dialects were now spoken side -by side, and continued so for quite a long while. What more natural, -therefore, than that each tongue should exercise some influence upon -the other, however slight? It is usually stated that French influence -hastened the decay of English<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</span> inflections. But the English had begun -to lose its inflections even before the coming of the Normans and to -rely more largely upon position and prepositions to indicate case -relations. No doubt, French influence accelerated this tendency. French -influence was also a factor in modifying the idiom and vocabulary of -the English tongue. But each language, as Anglo-Norman students assure -us, reacted upon the other mutually; and the speech of the invaders was -influenced by the English of the natives just as much as English was -influenced by French.</p> - -<p>The truth is, the influence of Norman French upon English was not so -important in itself, as far as any immediate effect was concerned; but -it paved the way for the subsequent influence of Parisian French which -swept like a mighty tidal wave over England, leaving a considerable -residuum and deposit in our speech alike in idiom and in vocabulary. -Norman influence upon our tongue was, therefore, chiefly indirect, -not direct. When Anjou was subdued by Philip Augustus of France in -1204, Normandy was forfeited by the English crown and from that day -Norman French influence on English was practically at an end. But the -Parisian dialect soon extended its sphere into Britain and began to -exert a decided influence upon the English speech. In the fourteenth -century English scholars industriously turned their attention to -French literature, either adapting or closely translating many -specimens. Norman French now gave place to the Parisian dialect which -had established itself as the standard speech for all the provinces -of France. English<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</span> scholars who crossed the Channel, as many now -did, learned the French of Paris; and when they returned to their -native shores of Albion, they brought with them the best French of -Paris. Having lost caste, the Norman dialect was no longer esteemed -fashionable in polite society and consequently it fell to the lot of -Parisian French to honor the heavy drafts which the English tongue -made during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries upon the French -language, for the enrichment and augmentation of its vocabulary. Nor, -indeed, did the French importations into our speech cease even then. -They continued, only with slightly diminished activity, during the -Elizabethan and succeeding ages, down to the present time. However, -during the last few centuries our vernacular has not borrowed so -copiously from that source, although we still draw heavily on French in -our art parlance.</p> - -<p>Yet despite the French invasion, English held its own as the -vernacular of the people, yielding but very little ground, except in -its vocabulary, to the foreign tongue. So far from retreating before -the vigorous onslaught of French influence, our sturdy English speech -actually advanced its position and succeeded in driving French from its -former stronghold of the court and high society. For the descendants of -the Normans who were overwhelmingly in the minority, seeing that they -were compelled by sheer force of circumstances to speak English also, -gradually abandoned French as their mother-tongue and were finally -content to use the language which was understood by everybody in the -kingdom. Thus<span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</span> the English vernacular at last triumphed over French as -the language even of the governing class in England; and French fell -into disuse and survived as a spoken tongue only in polite society and -among scholars, as an accomplishment.</p> - -<p>So much for the true relation of French to English in the history of -our speech. But to return to the question of the rise of the standard -literary language in England. As has been pointed out, from 1066 -to 1300 there was no recognized standard of English speech. In the -existing confusion of provincial dialects there was felt an urgent need -for a uniform speech throughout the entire country. The perplexity -resulting from the babel of unfamiliar English dialects in use at the -time of the introduction of printing was keenly felt by the people -themselves, but by none more than by Caxton, who set up the first -printing press in England. Now, Caxton himself used London English, as -a rule. But he experienced no little embarrassment when he began to -print books, because he was uncertain as to which dialect he should -employ. In the prologue to his version of Vergil’s Aeneid he freely -confesses his inability to determine which of the varying dialects he -should adopt. Commenting on the dialectal differences he complainingly -remarks: “And that common English that is spoken in one shire varyeth -from another. Insomuch that in my days happened that certain merchants -were in a ship in Thames, for to have sailed over the sea into Zeeland, -and for lack of wind they tarried at the foreland and went to land for -to refresh them. And one of them named Sheffield,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</span> a mercer, came into -an house and axed for meat and specially he axed after eggs; and the -good wife answered that she could speak no French. And the merchant -was angry, for he could speak no French, but would have had eggs and -she understood him not. And then at last another said that he would -have eiren; then the good wife said that she understood him well. Lo, -what should a man in these days now write, <i>eggs</i> or <i>eiren</i>? -Certainly it is hard to please every man because of diversity and -change of language.”</p> - -<p>This incident related by Caxton serves to illustrate how almost -unintelligible the southern dialect had become to the inhabitants -of the northern part of England in the early fifteenth century. The -several dialects spoken in England had diverged so much as to result -in a serious handicap on trade and a practical embargo on letters. -The Northern, the Southern and the Mercian (the last now split into -two minor dialects distinguished as east and west) had each risen to -the dignity of a literary language. But no one of them was recognized -as the triumphant dialect, destined to vanquish all its rivals and -to establish its sway over the entire country. At this juncture -circumstances, somehow, conspired to raise the East Midland dialect to -the primacy, enabling it to extend itself over the whole country as -the received language, the national speech. This dialect had much to -commend it to favor. To begin with, this dialect occupied a somewhat -central position geographically and so offered a compromise to the -inhabitants of the extreme northern and southern portions<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</span> of England, -whose dialects were so far apart. In the second place, East Midland was -the dialect of London, the great commercial center—the emporium—of -Great Britain. It was also the dialect of the famous university towns -where the flower of the English nobility was trained. Furthermore, -it was the dialect of the Court and Parliament whenever they spoke -English. Finally, it was the dialect of Wycklif’s version of the Bible -and of Chaucer, “that well of English undefiled” whose refreshing -stream of song carried joy and gladness to every part of the island.</p> - -<p>It is sometimes said that Chaucer’s poetic genius moulded the literary -language of England. This is a pleasant illusion, but not quite in -accord with the facts. Chaucer, in conformity to the custom of the -times, simply wrote in his native dialect. That dialect, it is true, -happened to be the dialect of the chief city of the realm and of -the most powerful elements in the state, the ruling class. It was a -mere accident that Chaucer spoke and wrote this same dialect as his -vernacular. In no sense did Chaucer create the London dialect. Nor -did he make it the received literary language, the standard speech of -the English people. This dictum was once accepted, but needless to -add it is now discredited by scholars. Yet Chaucer’s influence as the -foremost English author of his age was assuredly not without weight in -establishing the dialect of London as the standard literary language -of the kingdom. It is a significant fact that this dialect (which -was the dialect of the Court) had attained the distinction of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</span> being -the literary language of England, by the first half of the fifteenth -century, though perhaps it was a mere coincidence that this was only a -short time after Chaucer’s death. It is quite possible, yea probable, -that the East Midland dialect would have established its supremacy -as the standard language of England even if Chaucer had written his -works in French, or Latin, or Scotch. But it is not unreasonable to -suppose that an author of such rare and commanding genius as Chaucer -contributed not a little to hasten the process of the spread of his -native dialect and its acceptance as the standard language of the -realm. The acknowledged excellence of his poetic works tended, no -doubt, to stamp the dialect in which they were written as literary -English and furnished a sufficient guaranty, in after years, that his -language was classic English.</p> - -<p>The effect of the establishment of the East Midland dialect as the -standard language of England was soon observed in the rapid declension -and ultimate disuse of all the rival dialects. For as soon as the -dialect of London was recognized as supreme, no author could be -expected to court oblivion by employing any of the decadent provincial -dialects as his medium of expression. Hence all the provincial dialects -hitherto employed now either fell into disuse, or survived only as a -mere local <i>patois</i> without any literary pretensions—a rustic -lingo heard only on the lips of the illiterate and uncultured. Such -was the fate of the various Middle English dialects, Scotch only -excepted. The Northern dialect, or Scottish, seems to have maintained -itself for quite a considerable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</span> time. Indeed, Scottish was recognized -as the standard language of Scotland as long as that northern kingdom -preserved its independence. Down to the time of James the First, -therefore, there was a dual standard in the language of Great Britain, -the English of London which was the vernacular of England and the -Scottish of Edinburgh, which was the vernacular of Scotland. In 1603, -upon the accession of James the First, the Scottish as a literary -tongue was abandoned in favor of standard English, as a result of the -political organic union of Scotland with England. From that time to the -present there has been only one standard English language for Great -Britain. Yet the language spoken in Scotland preserves not a few traces -of the old Scotch dialect mingled with standard English, which imparts -to it its Scotch characteristics. This is more particularly noticeable -in the speech of the common people and occasionally in the works of -a popular poet like Burns, although his language contains very few -strictly Scotch words.</p> - -<p>It has been shown how standard English was enriched in vocabulary and -idiom by contact with the French language. It is to the Norman Conquest -that our speech is largely indebted for its double vocabulary which -gives English a unique place among modern languages. The skeleton of -our English tongue has always remained Teutonic, despite the unusually -large number of words it has assimilated from French and other foreign -sources. In our vocabulary, which has been so vastly swollen by our -French borrowings, the native English words, if one may venture to -make<span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</span> a rough distinction, are employed to signify objects of domestic -association, homespun ideas and thoughts, while the words of Romance -origin are reserved to express objects that are associated with luxury -and delicate culture and to convey subtle shades of thought. When two -or more words are used to signify very much the same thing, the genius -of the English speech tends to differentiate and to restrict the words -to separate and special senses. This, of course, makes the language -more flexible and more facile as a medium of expression.</p> - -<p>Just as English was enriched by contact with French, so it has been -improved, though to a less extent, by attrition and contact with -its sister dialects. By elbowing its way to the front through the -various dialects which jostled it, the dialect which developed into -standard English naturally lost by attrition most of the grammatical -peculiarities that hampered it. It was, of course, a decided advantage -to the London dialect, in its struggle for the distinction of the -standard speech, to throw off such inflections as proved a hindrance -to its complete development. Most philologists used to regard the loss -of superfluous inflections a symptom of decadence in a language. Now, -however, such a process is regarded a sign of virility and progress. -“The fewer and shorter the forms, the better,” affirms the eminent -Danish philologist Jespersen. “The analytical structure of modern -European languages is so far from being a drawback to them that it -gives them an unimpeachable superiority over the earlier stages of the -same language.” This high authority even goes so far as to declare that -“the so-called<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</span> full and rich forms of the ancient languages are not a -beauty, but a deformity.”</p> - -<p>Thus in the process of its development standard English was gradually -freed of many of its pristine grammatical encumbrances, to take its -place in the front rank of living tongues as the best equipped for a -universal language. And the end is not yet. For the work of simplifying -is still in progress. The history of our speech from the fifteenth -century down to the present day proves nothing more conclusively than -that English tends ever to become more and more simple in inflection -and syntax. Witness the dwindling use of the subjunctive mood, which -has been almost driven from the field of modern English syntax by the -constantly encroaching indicative. Another example in point is the -transfer of the function of the absolute case from the dative, an -oblique case, to the nominative. This shifting has been accomplished -since the time of Milton, who represents the transitional period. It is -evident then that the tendency of standard English is in the direction -of simplicity, and its future growth will, no doubt, be along the line -of least resistance. Certainly its <i>vis inertiae</i> seems destined, -unless acted upon by some violent external force, to move in that -direction.</p> - -<p>It need hardly be added that standard English, like every spoken -language, has undergone change, from age to age. Some words become -obsolete and drop out of the vocabulary. New words are coined to -take their places, and if, after a period of probation, they prove -acceptable, they are received into good usage and are recognized as -standard. In this manner the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</span> waste that necessarily occurs in living -English, as in every living language, is repaired. Thus the English -speech grows, adapting itself to the many and varied conditions which -are exacted of it as the medium for the communication of thought for -the millions of people in every quarter of the globe who use it. Here -and there slight variations from the normal, slight departures from -the standard, are made. But unless the locutions which constitute -these departures possess extraordinary vitality and force, unless they -persist with dogged tenacity and supply a real need in the language, -they are doomed to perish without leaving any appreciable effect upon -the standard speech.</p> - -<p>What, then, determines standard English? The reply, in a nutshell, -is the usage of the best writers and speakers. Standard English is -determined by the habitual manner the learned and cultured employ to -express their thoughts and feelings in words. The customary mode of -expression now in vogue among the most careful users of English has -been inherited from the generations of writers and speakers who have -employed our speech in the centuries past as their vernacular. The -leading English authors from Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, -Dryden, Swift, Johnson and a host of others, down to the living -writers, have each in his way contributed to make our standard literary -language. Each of these, it is true, has influenced standard English in -some degree. No one can fail to see the impress which such an eccentric -writer as Doctor Johnson, the literary dictator of the eighteenth -century, stamped upon the standard<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</span> English of his age. Our speech -shows no less distinctly marked traces of the influence of Addison. For -Addison’s admirable style, with its characteristic grace, crispness and -lightness of touch, even Johnson himself warmly commended, although -the great Cham’s innate tendency to the stilted, the turgid and the -ponderous prevented him from approximating in his practice what in -his preaching he so ardently held up for the imitation and emulation -of others. To mention another concrete example, in more recent times -standard English has been swayed somewhat by Macaulay’s passionate love -of antithesis and of the periodic structure of the sentence. Attention -might be called, likewise, to the influence of Gibbon’s chaste and -classic style (albeit a trifle heavy and wearisome at times) upon our -standard literary language, or to the influence of another prominent -author whose style is still more unique and distinctive—Thomas -Carlyle. Away back in the early history of English one may observe -in the style of the West-Saxon translator of Bede’s “Ecclesiastical -History” a trick of repetition which has made a lasting impression -on our standard speech; and it still survives in such familiar -tautological phrases as “really and truly,” “bright and shining,” “pure -and simple,” “without let or hindrance,” “toil and delve,” “confirm -and strengthen,” and “lord and master.” All of these locutions, as -Professor Kittredge informs us, in his suggestive book, “Words and -Their Ways in English Speech,” are in high favor, and are recognized as -standard English. Euphuism is a movement that swept over Elizabethan -English in the wake of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</span> tidal wave of ink-horn terms, materially -affecting the standard speech. Even Shakespeare could not quite resist -the fashion of Euphuism, and his English is indeed slightly colored -thereby. Another trick of style which has cropped out here and there, -from the days of Spenser down to the present age, is that of employing -archaic terms with the intent to revive them. On the score of this -affectation the most flagrant sinner among modern authors is William -Morris, whose writings furnish a veritable treasure-trove of curious -and amusing archaisms. But it is not worth while to multiply examples. -Let those already given suffice to illustrate how standard English has -been swayed, from time to time, even by the devices and attractions of -dame fashion.</p> - -<p>It is to be noted, in conclusion, that standard English is no longer -confined to the usage of any given locality, as was the case in -the early history of the language. The English language spoken in -London does not now enjoy the distinction of determining the standard -universally accepted. A special mode of utterance or a special idiom is -not now regarded proper simply and solely because it is sanctioned by -London usage. Indeed, that British metropolis appears rather to have -broken with its enviable past and worthy traditions in the matter of -its English, for London is now recognized as the home of the “cockney” -dialect. Nowhere more than on the lips of the native Londoner is the -purity of our noble tongue in jeopardy. Strange to say, the English -vernacular of the native Londoner has, of late years, fallen into -disrepute by reason of its abounding improprieties,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</span> its teeming -provincialisms and its solecisms. No educated man who professes English -as his mother-tongue would, to-day, think of making his speech conform -to the usage of London as reflected in the local dialect. It used to be -the custom to take London English as a model; but not so now, since the -local speech has become so corrupt as to prove a constant menace to the -purity of the living tongue. Perhaps it should be added, in order to -forestall adverse criticism, that standard English is, of course, heard -in London, as elsewhere, upon the lips of the educated and cultured. -But it is worth while to emphasize this fact, even at the risk of -repetition, that standard English is no longer confined to any given -locality or to any one country, for the matter of that, but is written -and spoken in America, in far-off India, and in other remote parts of -the world as well as in the British Isles. For wherever the English -language is employed, whether written or spoken, in accordance with -the best traditions of that rich, flexible and copious tongue, there -standard English is found, in whatever quarter of the globe it may be.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter transnote"> -<h2 class="nobreak" id="Transcribers_Notes">Transcriber’s Notes</h2> - - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_10">10</a>: “linguistc ideal” changed to “linguistic ideal”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_14">14</a>: A missing footnote anchor was added.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_29">29</a>: “<abbr title="saint">St.</abbr> James Gazettte” changed to “<abbr title="saint">St.</abbr> James Gazette”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_73">73</a>: “early pronunication” changed to “early pronunciation”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_85">85</a>: “in consequenec” changed to “in consequence”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_90">90</a>: “mode of pronuncing” changed to “mode of pronouncing”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_102">102</a>: “the quailty” changed to “the quality”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_105">105</a>: “not owning allegiance” changed to “not owing allegiance”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_108">108</a>: “very seriiously” changed to “very seriously”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_113">113</a>: “English lierature” changed to “English literature”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_115">115</a>: “cvil war” changed to “civil war”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_123">123</a>: “the senes of very” changed to “the sense of very”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_129">129</a>: “let is be distinctly” changed to “let it be distinctly”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_130">130</a>: “what constiutes” changed to “what constitutes”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_149">149</a>: “Danish philologist Jesperen” changed to “Danish philologist -Jespersen”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_150">150</a>: “constantly encoraching” changed to “constantly encroaching”</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_152">152</a>: “no less distainctly” changed to “no less distinctly”</p> -</div> -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK QUESTIONS AT ISSUE IN OUR ENGLISH SPEECH ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin-top:1em; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE</div> -<div style='text-align:center;font-size:0.9em'>PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/67953-h/images/001.jpg b/old/67953-h/images/001.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 0b24b43..0000000 --- a/old/67953-h/images/001.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67953-h/images/002.jpg b/old/67953-h/images/002.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index f15ca9e..0000000 --- a/old/67953-h/images/002.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67953-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/67953-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 8cb8484..0000000 --- a/old/67953-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null |
