THE KING'S ENGLISH AS SHE 'IS SPOKE.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR:1
SIR,—Is it too late for you and for the proof-readers of leading English journals to make an effort at stemming the influx into our language of ungainly and needless neologisms and phrases, some of which, I regret to see, have found their way into your columns P A singularly offensive one, to my mind, is rapidly gaining currency not only among illiterate writers, but also those who should know better, classifying themselves and their countrymen as " Britishers ." Why this uncouth denomination ? Would it ever occur to its employers to speak or write of " Spanishers " Y As a noun of multitude "British" can be, and frequently is, used, just as we say " the French " to denote that particular nationality ; but if the singular is required is not the signature at foot of this protest good enough P It has at least the merits of age and brevity, and, I imagine, has just as general an application to natives of the British Isles as its ugly intended equivalent. Whence the origin of this senseless word I know not; is it supposed to have been wafted across in an American cyclonic disturbance ? I do not remember hearing it on the other side of the North Atlantic ; but it is true that my residence over there dates from a longish time ago. Yet even if it hail from the great West, are we under compulsion to adopt it ? I am far from in- veighing against the construction of necessary new words to meet modern requirements ; but surely base coinage need not be admitted to circulation, or is our vocabulary to be permanently embellished by such elegant adjuncts as " skedaddle," " absquatulate," lc. ? I fail to see the force of these supposed forcible words any more than I do that of a milder monstrosity which seems to be acquiring acceptance as genuine English,—viz., the word " bogus." The originator of this thing of beauty perhaps thought that it gained appositeness by a sort of similarity to the familiar word for phantom; but wherein does it improve on the latter, or, if that be deemed not terse enough, what meaning does it convey other than that rendered by "mock " or " sham," which have the advantage of being monosyllabic P I fear it is hopeless to explain to official and commercial writers that " acquaint " and "inform" are not interchangeable words, and that you cannot, grammatically, acquaint any one that such-and-such is the case. " We have to acquaint you that you should act like your predecessor did" makes a pretty phrase, does it not P As far as my experience goes, foreign writers of a certain amount of culture are guiltless of errors of these sorts, whence I conclude that, strange to say, they, as youths, presumably received instruction in the use of their own languages, which, in my day at any rate, was not granted to the British boy, who was left to gain his knowledge of his mother-tongue as best he might, with the result that the average Englishman is about the most slipshod speaker and writer with whom I am informed (rid. sup.) I have occasionally seen letters indited by commercial men in such jargon as to be almost unintelligible. What Board-schools have done of late years to mend matters is not very apparent; but they have been eminently successful in perpetuating most villainous pronunciation, notably in the substitution of the sound of " i " for that of "a," though where the difficulty lays (to cite another besetting sin against grammar) of giving the first letter of the alphabet its approxi- mately correct value I cannot conceive. We are driven to dead languages to seek words applicable to sundry modern discoveries, but the public will not always take them for current use. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but the latter must be at a low ebb when one word only is pressed into service as noun and verb to signify either strengthening a fence, snaring vermin, or telegraphing a message. And what is to be said for philology when such a mongrel bastard is adopted as "cablegram," which is then abbreviated into "cable," as though there were some essential difference in the trans- mitting wire because it is laid under water instead of on land. The development of the Marconi system will perhaps need the introduction of new expressions. Are we to expect that in future when a correspondent's opinion is wanted by this method of communication he will be requested to " air his views " ? Let us pass to the abuse (one cannot fitly say use) of a wretched modern Gallicism,—" It goes without saying." This is a favourite beginning for a sentence nowadays, which is one reason for characterising it as an abuse, since I doubt if any " Frencher " would ever say " Cela va sans dire que" such-and. such a result ensues from a given cause. "Il va de soi " would, I fancy, be nearer the mark. This is immaterial, how. ever, my complaint being:that needless recourse should be had to a clumsily adapted tag, almost senseless in itself, when plenty of sound English equivalents are ready to hand, such as,—" It stands to reason," " It is obvious," "Needless to say," and so on, all of which are terser, and, in my humble opinion, equally to the point. I have not the pen of a ready writer, but if you, Sir, endorse my plea and will exert your literary influence on its behalf, I am sure gratitude will be due to you on the part of many whose feelings wince at the grotesque and obnoxious innovations inflicted on them by the reporting style [We are afraid we cannot endorse our correspondent's plea, for we dare not be accessories to the putting of that free and noble instrument of free men, the English language, into a strait-waistcoat, however decorous and classical the pattern of the brocade of which it is composed. But our correspondent's trenchant and amusing letter shows that he needs no help from us or anybody else to state his case. As to " Britisher," it seems to come from some natural tendency of the language. Our readers will remember the old Jacobite lament that James IL should have married his daughter to an " Granger." —ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
