The Noun and Adjective

The Noun and Adjective—The only inflections of the noun remaining in English are those for number and for the genitive, and so it is in these two regions that the few variations to be noted in vulgar American occur. The rule that, in forming the plurals of compound nouns or noun-phrases, the-sshall be attached to the principal noun is commonly disregarded, and it goes at the end. Thus, "I have twosons-in-law" is never heard; one always hears "I have twoson-in-laws." So with the genitive. I once overheard this: "that umbrella isthe young lady I go with's." Often a false singular is formed from a singular ending ins, the latter being mistaken for a plural.Chinee,PortugeeandJapaneeare familiar; I have also notedtrapee,tacticandsummon(fromtrapeze,tacticsandsummons). Paradoxically, the wordincidenceis commonly misused forincident, as in "he told anincidence." Hereincidence(orincident) seems to be regarded as a synonym, not forhappening, but forstory. I have never heard "he toldofan incidence." Theofis always omitted. The general disregard of number often shows itself when the noun is used as object. I have already quoted Lardner's "some of the men has brung theirwifealong"; in a popular magazine I lately encountered "those book ethnologists ... can't see what is before theirnose." Many similar examples might be brought forward.

The adjectives are inflected only for comparison, and the[Pg230]American commonly uses them correctly, with now and then a double comparative or superlative to ease his soul.More betteris the commonest of these. It has a good deal of support in logic. A sick man is reported today to bebetter. Tomorrow he is further improved. Is he to be reportedbetteragain, orbest? The standard language gets around the difficulty by usingstill better. The American vulgate boldly employsmore better. In the case ofworse,worseris used, as Charters shows. He also reportsbaddest,more queererandbeautifulest.Littler, which he notes, is still outlawed from standard English, but it has, withlittlest, a respectable place in American. The late Richard Harding Davis wrote a play called "TheLittlestGirl." The American freely compares adjectives that are incapable of the inflection logically. Charters reportsmost principal, and I myself have hearduniquerand evenmore uniquer, as in "I have never saw nothingmore uniquer." I have also heardmore ultra,more worse,idealer,liver(that is,more alive), andwellest, as in "he was thewellestman you ever seen." In general, the-erand-estterminations are used instead of themoreandmostprefixes, as inbeautiful,beautifuller,beautifullest. The fact that the comparative relates to two and the superlative to more than two is almost always forgotten. I have never heard "thebetterof the two," but always "thebestof the two." Charters also reports "thehardestof the two" and "my brother and I measured and he was thetallest." I have frequently heard "it ain't soworse," but here a humorous effect seems to have been intended.

Adjectives are made much less rapidly in American than either substantives or verbs. The only suffix that seems to be in general use for that purpose is-y, as intony,classy,daffy,nutty,dinky,leery, etc. The use of the adjectival prefixsuper-is confined to the more sophisticated classes; the plain people seem to be unaware of it.[71]This relative paucity of adjectives appears to be common to the more primitive varieties of speech. E. J.[Pg231]Hills, in his elaborate study of the vocabulary of a child of two,[72]found that it contained but 23 descriptive adjectives, of which six were the names of colors, as against 59 verbs and 173 common nouns. Moreover, most of the 23 minus six were adjectives of all work, such asnasty,funnyandnice. Colloquial American uses the same rubber-stamps of speech.Funnyconnotes the whole range of the unusual;hardindicates every shade of difficulty;niceis everything satisfactory;bullyis a superlative of almost limitless scope.

The decay ofoneto a vaguen-sound, as inthis'n, is matched by a decay ofthanafter comparatives.Earlier thanis seldom if ever heard; composition reduces the two words toearlier'n. So withbetter'n,faster'n,hotter'n,deader'n, etc. Once I overheard the following dialogue: "I like a beltmore looser'nwhat this one is." "Well, then, why don't you unloosen itmore'nyou got it unloosened?"

§ 7

The Double Negative—Syntactically, perhaps the chief characteristic of vulgar American is its sturdy fidelity to the double negative. So freely is it used, indeed, that the simple negative appears to be almost abandoned. Such phrases as "I see nobody" or "I know nothing about it" are heard so seldom that they appear to be affectations when encountered; the well-nigh universal forms are "Idon'tsee nobody" and "Idon'tknow nothing about it." Charters lists some very typical examples, among them, "he ain'tnevercoming backnomore," "youdon'tcare for nobody but yourself," "couldn't benomore happier" and "Ican'tsee nothing." In Lardner there are innumerable examples: "they wasnotno team," "I havenotnever thought of that," "I can't writenomore," "no chance to getnomoney fromnowhere," "wecan'thave nothing to do," and so on. Some of his specimens show a considerable complexity, for[Pg232]example, "Matthewson wasnotonly going as far as the coast," meaning, as the context shows, that he was going as far as the coast and no further.Onlygets into many other examples,e. g., "he hadn'tonlythe one pass" and "I don't work nights no more,onlyexcept Sunday nights." This latter I got from a car conductor. Many other curious specimens are in my collectanea, among them: "one swaller don't makenosummer," "Ineverseen nothing I would of rather saw," and "once a child gets burnt once itwon'tnever stick its hand innofirenomore," and so on. The last embodies a triple negative. In "the more faster you go, the sooner youdon'tget there" there is an elaborate muddling of negatives that is very characteristic.

Like most other examples of "bad grammar" encountered in American the compound negative is of great antiquity and was once quite respectable. The student of Anglo-Saxon encounters it constantly. In that language the negative of the verb was formed by prefixing a particle,ne. Thus,singan(=to sing) becamene singan(=not to sing). In case the verb began with a vowel thenedropped itseand was combined with the verb, as innaefre(never), fromne-aefre(=not ever). In case the verb began with anhor awfollowed by a vowel, thehorwof the verb and theeofnewere both dropped, as innaefth(=has not), fromne-haefth(=not has), andnolde(=would not), fromne-wolde. Finally, in case the vowel following awwas ani, it changed toy, as innyste(=knew not), fromne-wiste. But inasmuch as Anglo-Saxon was a fully inflected language the inflections for the negative did not stop with the verbs; the indefinite article, the indefinite pronoun and even some of the nouns were also inflected, and survivors of those forms appear to this day in such words asnoneandnothing. Moreover, when an actual inflection was impossible it was the practise to insert thisnebefore a word, in the sense of ournoornot. Still more, it came to be the practise to reinforcene, before a vowel, withnā(=not) ornaht(=nothing), which later degenerated tonatandnot. As a result, there were fearful and wonderful combinations of negatives, some of them fully matching the best efforts of Lardner's baseball player. Sweet[Pg233]gives several curious examples.[73]"Nān ne dorste nān thing āscian," translated literally, becomes "noone daresnotasknothing." "Thaet hus nā ne feoll" becomes "the house didnotfallnot." As for the Middle English "henevernaddenothing," it has too modern and familiar a ring to need translating at all. Chaucer, at the beginning of the period of transition to Modern English, used the double negative with the utmost freedom. In "The Knight's Tale" is this:

HenevereyetnovileynyenesaydeIn al his lyf untonomaner wight.

By the time of Shakespeare this license was already much restricted, but a good many double negatives are nevertheless to be found in his plays, and he was particularly shaky in the use ofnor. In "Richard III" one finds "I never wasnor neverwill be"; in "Measure for Measure," "harp not on thatnordonotbanish treason," and in "Romeo and Juliet," "thou expectedst not,norI looked not for." This misuse ofnoris still very frequent. In other directions, too, the older forms show a tendency to survive all the assaults of grammarians. "Noitdoesn't," heard every day and by no means from the ignorant only, is a sort of double negative. The insertion ofbutbefore that, as in "I doubtbutthat" and "there is no questionbutthat," makes a double negative that is probably full-blown. Nevertheless, as we have seen, it is heard on the floor of Congress every day, and the Fowlers show that it is also common in England.[74]Even worse forms get into theCongressional Record. Not long ago, for example, I encountered "withouthardlyan exception" in a public paper of the utmost importance.[75]There are, indeed, situations in which the double negative leaps to the lips or from the pen almost irresistibly; even such careful writers as Huxley, Robert Louis Stevenson and Leslie Stephen have[Pg234]occasionally dallied with it.[76]It is perfectly allowable in the Romance languages, and, as we have seen, is almost the rule in the American vulgate. Now and then some anarchistic student of the language boldly defends and even advocates it. "The double negative," said a writer in theLondon Reviewa long time ago,[77]"has been abandoned to the great injury of strength of expression." Surely "I won't take nothing" is stronger than either "I will take nothing" or "I won't take anything."

"Language begins," says Sayce, "with sentences, not with single words." In a speech in process of rapid development, unrestrained by critical analysis, the tendency to sacrifice the integrity of words to the needs of the complete sentence is especially marked. One finds it clearly in American. Already we have examined various assimilation and composition forms:that'n,use' to,would'a,them 'ereand so on. Many others are observable.Off'nis a good example; it comes fromoff ofand shows a preposition decaying to the form of a mere inflectional particle. One constantly hears "I bought itoff'nJohn."Sort'a,kind'aand their like follow in the footsteps ofwould'a.Usen'tfollows the analogy ofdon'tandwouldn't.Would 'veandshould 'veare widely used; Lardner commonly hears them aswould ofandshould of. The neutrala-particle also appears in other situations, especially beforeway, as inthat'a wayandthis'a way. It is found again ina tall, a liaison form ofat all.[78]

§ 8

Pronunciation—Before anything approaching a thorough and profitable study of the sounds of the American common speech is possible, there must be a careful assembling of the materials, and this, unfortunately, still awaits a philologist of sufficient enterprise and equipment. Dr. William A. Read, of the State University of Louisiana, has made some excellent examinations[Pg235]of vowel and consonant sounds in the South, Dr. Louise Pound has done capital work of the same sort in the Middle West,[79]and there have been other regional studies of merit. But most of these become misleading by reason of their lack of scope; forms practically universal in the nation are discussed as dialectical variations. This is the central defect in the work of the American Dialect Society, otherwise very industrious and meritorious. It is essaying to study localisms before having first platted the characteristics of the general speech. The dictionaries of Americanisms deal with pronunciation only casually, and often very inaccurately; the remaining literature is meagre and unsatisfactory.[80]Until the matter is gone into at length it will be impossible to discuss any phase of it with exactness. No single investigator can examine the speech of the whole country; for that business a pooling of forces is necessary. But meanwhile it may be of interest to set forth a few provisional ideas.

At the start two streams of influence upon American pronunciation may be noted, the one an inheritance from the English of the colonists and the other arising spontaneously within the country, and apparently much colored by immigration. The first influence, it goes without saying, is gradually dying out. Consider, for example, the pronunciation of the diphthongoi. In Middle English it was as inboy, but during the early Modern English period it was assimilated with that of theiinwine, and this usage prevailed at the time of the settlement of America. The colonists thus brought it with them, and at the same time it lodged in Ireland, where it still prevails. But in England, during the pedantic eighteenth century, thisi-sound was displaced by the originaloi-sound, not by historical research but by mere deduction from the spelling, and the new pronunciation soon extended to the polite speech of America. In the common speech, however, thei-sound persisted, and down to the time of[Pg236]the Civil War it was constantly heard in such words asboil,hoist,oil,join,poisonandroil, which thus becamebile,hist,ile,jine,pisenandrile. Since then the school-marm has combatted it with such vigor that it has begun to disappear, and such forms aspisen,jine,bileandileare now very seldom heard, save as dialectic variations. But in certain other words, perhaps supported by Irish influence, thei-sound still persists. Chief among them arehoistandroil. An unlearned American, wishing to say that he was enraged, never says that he wasroiled, but always that he wasriled. Desiring to examine the hoof of his horse, he never orders the animal tohoistbut always tohist. In the form ofbooze-hister, the latter is almost in good usage. I have seenbooze-histerthus spelled and obviously to be thus pronounced, in an editorial article in theAmerican Issue, organ of the Anti-Saloon League of America.[81]

Various similar misplaced vowels were brought from England by the colonists and have persisted in America, while dying out of good England usage. There is, for example, shortiin place of longe, as incritterforcreature.Critteris common to almost all the dialects of English, but American has embedded the vowel in a word that is met with nowhere else and has thus become characteristic, to wit,crickforcreek. Nor does any other dialect make such extensive use ofslickforsleek. Again, there is the substitution of the flatafor the broadainsauce. England has gone back to the broada, but in America the flatapersists, and many Americans who usesassyevery day would scarcely recognizesaucyif they heard it. Yet again, there isquoit. Originally, the English pronounced itquate, but now they pronounce the diphthong as indoily. In the United States thequatepronunciation remains. Finally, there isdeaf. Its proper pronunciation, in the England that the colonists left, wasdeef, but it now rhymes withJeff. That new pronunciation has been adopted by polite American, despite the protests of Noah Webster, but in the common speech the word is still alwaysdeef.

However, a good many of the vowels of the early days have[Pg237]succumbed to pedagogy. The American proletarian may still useskeerforscare, but in most of the other words of that class he now uses the vowel approved by correct English usage. Thus he seldom permits himself such old forms asdreenfordrain,keerforcare,skeerceforscarceor evencheerforchair. The Irish influence supported them for a while, but now they are fast going out. So, too, arekivverforcover,crapforcrop, andchistforchest. Butkittleforkettlestill shows a certain vitality,renchis still used in place ofrinse, andsquinchin place ofsquint, and a flatacontinues to displace variouse-sounds in such words asrareforrear(e. g., as a horse) andwrassleforwrestle. Contrariwise,edisplacesaincatchandradish, which are commonly pronouncedketchandreddish. Thise-sound was once accepted in standard English; when it got into spoken American it was perfectly sound; one still hears it from the most pedantic lips inany.[82]There are also certain other ancients that show equally unbroken vitality among us, for example,stompforstamp,[83]snootforsnout,guardeenforguardian, andchampeenforchampion.

But all these vowels, whether approved or disapproved, have been under the pressure, for the past century, of a movement toward a general vowel neutralization, and in the long run it promises to dispose of many of them. The same movement also affects standard English, as appears by Robert Bridges' "Tract on the Present State of English Pronunciation," but I believe that it is stronger in America, and will go farther, at least with the common speech, if only because of our unparalleled immigration. Standard English has 19 separate vowel sounds. No other living tongue of Europe, save Portuguese, has so many; most of the others have a good many less; Modern Greek has but five. The immigrant, facing all these vowels, finds some of them quite impossible; the Russian Jew, as we have seen, cannot manageur. As a result, he tends to employ a neutralized[Pg238]vowel in all the situations which present difficulties, and this neutralized vowel, supported by the slip-shod speech-habits of the native proletariat, makes steady progress. It appears in many of the forms that we have been examining—in the finalaofwould'a, vaguely before theninthis'nandoff'n, in place of the originaldinuse' to, and in the common pronunciation of such words asbeen,comeandhave, particularly when they are sacrificed to sentence exigencies, as in "Ib'nthinking," "c'm 'ere," and "he would'vesaw you."

Here we are upon a wearing down process that shows many other symptoms. One finds, not only vowels disorganized, but also consonants. Some are displaced by other consonants, measurably more facile; others are dropped altogether.Dbecomest, as inholt, or is dropped, as intole,han'kerchief,bran-newandfine(forfind). Inast(forask)treplacesk: when the same word is used in place ofasked, as often happens,e. g., in "Iasthim his name," it shoulders outked. It is itself lopped off inbankrup,quan'ity,crep,slep,wep,kep,gris'-millandles(=let's=let us), and is replaced bydinkindergardenandpardner.Ldisappears, as ina'readyandgent'man.Sbecomestsh, as inpincers. The sametshreplacesc, as inpitcherforpicture, andt, as inamachoor.Gdisappears from the ends of words, and sometimes, too, in the middle, as instren'thandreco'nize.R, though it is better preserved in American than in English, is also under pressure, as appears bybust,stuck on(forstruck on),cuss(forcurse),yestiddy,sa's'parella,pa'tridge,ca'tridge,they is(forthere is) andSadd'y(forSaturday). An excrescenttsurvives in a number of words,e. g.,onc't,twic't,clos't,wisht(forwish) andchanc't; it is an heirloom from the English of two centuries ago. So is the finalhinheighth. An excrescentb, as inchimbleyandfambly, seems to be native. Whole syllables are dropped out of words, paralleling the English butchery ofextraordinary; for example, inbound'ry,hist'ry,lib'ryandprob'ly.Ordinary, likeextraordinary, is commonly enunciated clearly, but it has bred a degenerated form,onryoronery, differentiated in meaning. Consonants are misplaced by metathesis, as inprespiration,hunderd,[Pg239]brethern,childern,interduce,apern,calvary,govrenment,modrenandwosterd(forworsted).Owis changed toer, as infeller,swaller,yeller,beller,umbrellerandholler;iceis changed toersinjaunders. Words are given new syllables, as inellum,mischieviousandmunicipial.

In the complete sentence, assimilation makes this disorganization much more obvious. Mearns, in a brief article[84]gives many examples of the extent to which it is carried. He hears "wah zee say?" for "what does he say?" "ware zee?" for "where is he?" "ast 'er in" for "ask her in," "itt'm owd" for "hit them out," "sry" for "that is right," and "c'meer" for "come here." He believes thattis gradually succumbing tod, and cites "ass bedder" (for "that's better"), "wen juh ged din?" (for "when did you get in?"), and "siddup" (for "sit up"). One hears countless other such decayed forms on the street every day.Have tois almost invariably madehafta, with the neutral vowel where I have put the seconda.Let's, already noticed, isle' 's. The neutral vowel replaces theooofgooding'by. "What did you say" reduces itself to "wuz ay?"Maybeismebby,perhapsisp'raps,so longiss'long,excuse meisskus me; the common salutation, "How are you?" is so dismembered that it finally emerges as a word almost indistinguishable fromhigh. Here there is room for inquiry, and that inquiry deserves the best effort of American phonologists, for the language is undergoing rapid changes under their very eyes, or, perhaps more accurately, under their very ears, and a study of those changes should yield a great deal of interesting matter. How did the wordstint, on American lips, first convert itself intostentand then intostunt? By what process wasbaulkchanged intobuck? Bothstuntandbuckare among the commonest words in the everyday American vocabulary, and yet no one, so far, has investigated them scientifically.

A by-way that is yet to be so much as entered is that of naturalized loan-words in the common speech. A very characteristic word of that sort issashay. Its relationship to the Frenchchasséseems to be plain, and yet it has acquired meanings in[Pg240]American that differ very widely from the meaning ofchassé. How widely it is dispersed may be seen by the fact that it is reported in popular use, as a verb signifying to prance or to walk consciously, in Southeastern Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern Arkansas, Eastern Alabama and Western Indiana, and, with slightly different meaning, on Cape Cod. The travels ofcaféin America would repay investigation; particularly its variations in pronunciation. I believe that it is fast becomingkaif.Plaza,boulevard,vaudeville,menuandrathskellerhave entered into the common speech of the land, and are pronounced as American words. Such words, when they come in verbally, by actual contact with immigrants, commonly retain some measure of their correct native pronunciation.Spiel,kosher,ganofandmatzohare examples; their vowels remain un-American. But words that come in visually, say through street-signs and the newspapers, are immediately overhauled and have thoroughly Americanized vowels and consonants thereafter. School-teachers have been trying to establish various pseudo-French pronunciations ofvasefor fifty years past, but it still rhymes withfacein the vulgate.Vaudevilleisvawd-vill;boulevardhas a harddat the end;plazahas two flata's; the first syllable ofmenurhymes withbee; the first ofrathskellerwithcats;fiancéeisfy-ancé-y;néerhymes withsee;décolletéisde-coll-ty;hofbräuishuffbrow; the Germanwhas lost itsv-sound and becomes an Americanw. I have, in my day, heardproteegeforprotégé,habichooforhabitué,connisoorforconnisseur,shirtsoforscherzo,premeerforpremière,eetoodforétudeandpreloodforprelude.Divorcéeisdivorcey, and has all the rakishness of the adjectives in-y. The first syllable ofmayonnaiserhymes withhay.Crème de mentheiscream de mint.Schweizerisswite-ser.Rochefortisroke-fort. I have hearddébutwith the last syllable rhyming withnut. I have heardminootforminuet. I have heardtchef dooverforchef d'œuvre. And who doesn't remember

As I walked along theBoys Boo-longWith an independent air

and[Pg241]

Sayaw re-vore,But not good-by!

Charles James Fox, it is said, called the red wine of FranceBordoxto the end of his days. He had an American heart; his great speeches for the revolting colonies were more than mere oratory.

FOOTNOTES:[1]Sweet, perhaps the abbot of the order, makes almost indecent haste to sin. See the second paragraph on the very first page of vol. i of his New English Grammar.[2]Yale Review, April, 1918, p. 548.[3]Yale Review,op. cit., p. 560.[4]The Difficulties Created by Grammarians Are to be Ignored, by W. H. Wilcox,Atlantic Educational Journal, Nov., 1912, p. 8. The title of this article is quoted from ministerial instructions of 1909 to the teachers of Frenchlyceés.[5]Op cit.p. 7. Mr. Wilcox is an instructor in the Maryland State Normal School.[6]See especially chapters ix and x of Words and Their Uses and chapters xvii, xviii and xix of Every-Day English; also the preface to the latter, p. xiet seq.The study of other languages has been made difficult by the same attempt to force the characters of Greek and Latin grammar upon them. One finds a protest against the process, for example, in E. H. Palmer's Grammar of Hindustani, Persian and Arabic; London, 1906. In all ages, indeed, grammarians appear to have been fatuous. The learned will remember Aristophanes' ridicule of them in The Clouds, 660-690.[7]The case is well summarized in Simpler English Grammar, by Patterson Wardlaw,Bull. of the University of S. Carolina, No. 38, pt. iii, July, 1914.[8]Cincinnati, 1868; rev. ed., 1878.[9]New York, 1903; rev. ed., 1915.[10]Even Sweet, though he bases his New English Grammar upon the spoken language and thus sets the purists at defiance, quickly succumbs to the labelling mania. Thus his classification of tenses includes such fabulous monsters as these: continuous, recurrent, neutral, definite, indefinite, secondary, incomplete, inchoate, short and long.[11]By W. F. Webster and Alice Woodworth Cooley; Boston, 1903; rev. eds., 1905 and 1909. The authors are Minneapolis teachers.[12]Op. cit.p. 8.[13]Bulletin No. 2; Washington, 1917.[14]The Middle American,American Magazine, March, 1907.[15]Cf.White: Every-Day English, p. 367et seq.[16]Cf.Sweet: New English Grammar, vol. i, p. 5.[17]Dr. Charters' report appears as Vol. XVI, No. 2,University of Missouri Bulletin, Education Series No. 9, Jan., 1915. He was aided in his inquiry by Edith Miller, teacher of English in one of the St. Louis high-schools.[18]You Know Me Al: New York, 1916.[19]Saturday Evening Post, July 11, 1914.[20]Binis the correct American pronunciation.Bean, as we have seen, is the English. But I have often foundben, rhyming withpen, in such phrases as "Ibenthere."[21]See p. 209.[22]Seldom used.Getis used in the place of it, as in "I amgettingold" and "hegotsick."[23]Burned, with a distinctd-sound, is almost unknown in American. See p. 201.[24]Not used.[25]Cotchedis heard only in the South, and mainly among the negroes.Catch, of course, is always pronouncedketch.[26]But "Idrewthree jacks," in poker.[27]Fotchis also heard, but it is not general.[28]Fitandfitten, unless my observation errs, are heard only in dialect.Fitis archaic English.Cf.Thornton, vol. i, p. 322.[29]Glodeonce enjoyed a certain respectability in America. It occurs in theKnickerbocker Magazinefor April, 1856.[30]Hangedis never heard.[31]Hetis incomplete without the addition ofup. "He washet up" is always heard, not "he washet."[32]Always so pronounced. See p. 236.[33]See pp. 57 and 202.[34]Always used in place ofrinse.[35]Always used in place ofroil.[36]Sotis heard as a localism only.[37]Seeset, which is used almost invariably in place ofsit.[38]Thunkis never used seriously; it always shows humorous intent.[39]See pp. 201 and 211.[40]Cf.Lounsbury: History of the English Language, pp. 309-10.[41]English As We Speak It In Ireland, p. 77.[42]The Science of Language, vol. i, p. 166.[43]The last stand of the distinct-edwas made in Addison's day. He was in favor of retaining it, and in theSpectatorfor Aug. 4, 1711, he protested against obliterating the syllable in the termination "of our praeter perfect tense, as in these words,drown'd,walk'd,arriv'd, fordrowned,walked,arrived, which has very much disfigured the tongue, and turned a tenth part of our smoothest words into so many clusters of consonants."[44]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 380.[45]History of the English Language, p. 398.[46]And still more often as an adjective, as in "it was aboughtendress."[47]You Know Me Al, p. 180; see also p. 122.[48]Cf.Lounsbury: History of the English Language, pp. 393et seq.[49]Remark of a policeman talking to another. What he actually said was "before the Elks wasc'm 'ere."Comeandherewere one word, approximatelycmear. The context showed that he meant to use the past perfect tense.[50]These examples are from Lardner's story, A New Busher Breaks In, in You Know Me Al, pp. 122et seq.[51]You Know Me Al,op. cit., p. 124.[52]The Making of English, p. 53.[53]Cf.Dialect Notes, vol. iii, pt. i, p. 59;ibid., vol. III, pt. iv, p. 283.[54]Henry Bradley, in The Making of English, pp. 54-5: "In the parts of England which were largely inhabited by Danes the native pronouns (i. e.,heo,his,heomandheora) were supplanted by the Scandinavian pronouns which are represented by the modernshe,they,themandtheir." This substitution, at first dialectical, gradually spread to the whole language.[55]Cf.Sweet: A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 344, par. 1096.[56]Before a noun beginning with a vowelthineandmineare commonly substituted forthyandmy, as in "thineeyes" and "mineinfirmity." But this is solely for the sake of euphony. There is no compensatory use ofmyandthyin the absolute.[57]The Making of English, p. 58.[58]Cf.The Dialect of Southeastern Missouri, by D. S. Crumb,Dialect Notes, vol. ii, pt. iv, 1903, p. 337.[59]It occurs, too, of course, in other dialects of English, though by no means in all. The Irish influence probably had something to do with its prosperity in vulgar American. At all events, the Irish use it in the American manner. Joyce, in English As We Speak It in Ireland, pp. 34-5, argues that this usage was suggested by Gaelic. In Gaelic the accusative pronouns,e,iandiad(=him,herandthem) are often used in place of the nominatives,sé,siandsiad(=he,sheandthey), as in "isiadsin na buachaillidhe" (=themare the boys). This is "good grammar" in Gaelic, and the Irish, when they began to learn English, translated the locution literally. The familiar Irish "John is dead andhimalways so hearty" shows the same influence.[60]Pp. 144-50.[61]Modern English, p. 300.[62]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 339.[63]History of the English Language, pp. 274-5.[64]Modern English, p. 288-9.[65]Cf.p. 145n.[66]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 341.[67]It may be worth noting here that the misuse ofmeformy, as in "I litmepipe" is quite unknown in American, either standard or vulgar. Even "meown" is seldom heard. This boggling of the cases is very common in spoken English.[68]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 341.[69]The King's English, p. 63.[70]"Hon." Edward E. Browne, of Wisconsin, in the House of Representatives, July 18, 1918, p. 9965.[71]Cf.Vogue Affixes in Present-Day Word-Coinage, by Louise Pound,Dialect Notes, vol. v, pt. i, 1918.[72]The Speech of a Child Two Years of Age,Dialect Notes, vol. iv, pt. ii, 1914.[73]A New English Grammar, pt. i, pp. 437-8.[74]The King's English, p. 322. See especially the quotation from Frederick Greenwood, the distinguished English journalist.[75]Report of Edward J. Brundage, attorney-general of Illinois, on the East St. Louis massacre,Congressional Record, Jan. 7, 1918, p. 661.[76]The King's English,op. cit.[77]Oct. 1, 1864.[78]At all, by the way, is often displaced byanyornone, as in "he don't lover herany" and "it didn't hurt menone."[79]See the bibliography for the publication of Drs. Read and Pound.[80]The only book that I can find definitely devoted to American sounds is A Handbook of American Speech, by Calvin L. Lewis; Chicago, 1916. It has many demerits. For example, the author gives az-sound to thesinvenison(p. 52). This is surely not American.[81]Maryland edition, July 18, 1914, p. 1.[82]Cf.Lounsbury: The Standard of Pronunciation in English, p. 172et seq.[83]Stompis used only in the sense of to stamp with the foot. One alwaysstampsa letter. An analogue ofstomp, accepted in correct English, isstrop(e. g.,razor-strop), fromstrap.[84]Our Own, Our Native Speech,McClure's Magazine, Oct., 1916.

[1]Sweet, perhaps the abbot of the order, makes almost indecent haste to sin. See the second paragraph on the very first page of vol. i of his New English Grammar.

[2]Yale Review, April, 1918, p. 548.

[3]Yale Review,op. cit., p. 560.

[4]The Difficulties Created by Grammarians Are to be Ignored, by W. H. Wilcox,Atlantic Educational Journal, Nov., 1912, p. 8. The title of this article is quoted from ministerial instructions of 1909 to the teachers of Frenchlyceés.

[5]Op cit.p. 7. Mr. Wilcox is an instructor in the Maryland State Normal School.

[6]See especially chapters ix and x of Words and Their Uses and chapters xvii, xviii and xix of Every-Day English; also the preface to the latter, p. xiet seq.The study of other languages has been made difficult by the same attempt to force the characters of Greek and Latin grammar upon them. One finds a protest against the process, for example, in E. H. Palmer's Grammar of Hindustani, Persian and Arabic; London, 1906. In all ages, indeed, grammarians appear to have been fatuous. The learned will remember Aristophanes' ridicule of them in The Clouds, 660-690.

[7]The case is well summarized in Simpler English Grammar, by Patterson Wardlaw,Bull. of the University of S. Carolina, No. 38, pt. iii, July, 1914.

[8]Cincinnati, 1868; rev. ed., 1878.

[9]New York, 1903; rev. ed., 1915.

[10]Even Sweet, though he bases his New English Grammar upon the spoken language and thus sets the purists at defiance, quickly succumbs to the labelling mania. Thus his classification of tenses includes such fabulous monsters as these: continuous, recurrent, neutral, definite, indefinite, secondary, incomplete, inchoate, short and long.

[11]By W. F. Webster and Alice Woodworth Cooley; Boston, 1903; rev. eds., 1905 and 1909. The authors are Minneapolis teachers.

[12]Op. cit.p. 8.

[13]Bulletin No. 2; Washington, 1917.

[14]The Middle American,American Magazine, March, 1907.

[15]Cf.White: Every-Day English, p. 367et seq.

[16]Cf.Sweet: New English Grammar, vol. i, p. 5.

[17]Dr. Charters' report appears as Vol. XVI, No. 2,University of Missouri Bulletin, Education Series No. 9, Jan., 1915. He was aided in his inquiry by Edith Miller, teacher of English in one of the St. Louis high-schools.

[18]You Know Me Al: New York, 1916.

[19]Saturday Evening Post, July 11, 1914.

[20]Binis the correct American pronunciation.Bean, as we have seen, is the English. But I have often foundben, rhyming withpen, in such phrases as "Ibenthere."

[21]See p. 209.

[22]Seldom used.Getis used in the place of it, as in "I amgettingold" and "hegotsick."

[23]Burned, with a distinctd-sound, is almost unknown in American. See p. 201.

[24]Not used.

[25]Cotchedis heard only in the South, and mainly among the negroes.Catch, of course, is always pronouncedketch.

[26]But "Idrewthree jacks," in poker.

[27]Fotchis also heard, but it is not general.

[28]Fitandfitten, unless my observation errs, are heard only in dialect.Fitis archaic English.Cf.Thornton, vol. i, p. 322.

[29]Glodeonce enjoyed a certain respectability in America. It occurs in theKnickerbocker Magazinefor April, 1856.

[30]Hangedis never heard.

[31]Hetis incomplete without the addition ofup. "He washet up" is always heard, not "he washet."

[32]Always so pronounced. See p. 236.

[33]See pp. 57 and 202.

[34]Always used in place ofrinse.

[35]Always used in place ofroil.

[36]Sotis heard as a localism only.

[37]Seeset, which is used almost invariably in place ofsit.

[38]Thunkis never used seriously; it always shows humorous intent.

[39]See pp. 201 and 211.

[40]Cf.Lounsbury: History of the English Language, pp. 309-10.

[41]English As We Speak It In Ireland, p. 77.

[42]The Science of Language, vol. i, p. 166.

[43]The last stand of the distinct-edwas made in Addison's day. He was in favor of retaining it, and in theSpectatorfor Aug. 4, 1711, he protested against obliterating the syllable in the termination "of our praeter perfect tense, as in these words,drown'd,walk'd,arriv'd, fordrowned,walked,arrived, which has very much disfigured the tongue, and turned a tenth part of our smoothest words into so many clusters of consonants."

[44]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 380.

[45]History of the English Language, p. 398.

[46]And still more often as an adjective, as in "it was aboughtendress."

[47]You Know Me Al, p. 180; see also p. 122.

[48]Cf.Lounsbury: History of the English Language, pp. 393et seq.

[49]Remark of a policeman talking to another. What he actually said was "before the Elks wasc'm 'ere."Comeandherewere one word, approximatelycmear. The context showed that he meant to use the past perfect tense.

[50]These examples are from Lardner's story, A New Busher Breaks In, in You Know Me Al, pp. 122et seq.

[51]You Know Me Al,op. cit., p. 124.

[52]The Making of English, p. 53.

[53]Cf.Dialect Notes, vol. iii, pt. i, p. 59;ibid., vol. III, pt. iv, p. 283.

[54]Henry Bradley, in The Making of English, pp. 54-5: "In the parts of England which were largely inhabited by Danes the native pronouns (i. e.,heo,his,heomandheora) were supplanted by the Scandinavian pronouns which are represented by the modernshe,they,themandtheir." This substitution, at first dialectical, gradually spread to the whole language.

[55]Cf.Sweet: A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 344, par. 1096.

[56]Before a noun beginning with a vowelthineandmineare commonly substituted forthyandmy, as in "thineeyes" and "mineinfirmity." But this is solely for the sake of euphony. There is no compensatory use ofmyandthyin the absolute.

[57]The Making of English, p. 58.

[58]Cf.The Dialect of Southeastern Missouri, by D. S. Crumb,Dialect Notes, vol. ii, pt. iv, 1903, p. 337.

[59]It occurs, too, of course, in other dialects of English, though by no means in all. The Irish influence probably had something to do with its prosperity in vulgar American. At all events, the Irish use it in the American manner. Joyce, in English As We Speak It in Ireland, pp. 34-5, argues that this usage was suggested by Gaelic. In Gaelic the accusative pronouns,e,iandiad(=him,herandthem) are often used in place of the nominatives,sé,siandsiad(=he,sheandthey), as in "isiadsin na buachaillidhe" (=themare the boys). This is "good grammar" in Gaelic, and the Irish, when they began to learn English, translated the locution literally. The familiar Irish "John is dead andhimalways so hearty" shows the same influence.

[60]Pp. 144-50.

[61]Modern English, p. 300.

[62]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 339.

[63]History of the English Language, pp. 274-5.

[64]Modern English, p. 288-9.

[65]Cf.p. 145n.

[66]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 341.

[67]It may be worth noting here that the misuse ofmeformy, as in "I litmepipe" is quite unknown in American, either standard or vulgar. Even "meown" is seldom heard. This boggling of the cases is very common in spoken English.

[68]A New English Grammar, pt. i, p. 341.

[69]The King's English, p. 63.

[70]"Hon." Edward E. Browne, of Wisconsin, in the House of Representatives, July 18, 1918, p. 9965.

[71]Cf.Vogue Affixes in Present-Day Word-Coinage, by Louise Pound,Dialect Notes, vol. v, pt. i, 1918.

[72]The Speech of a Child Two Years of Age,Dialect Notes, vol. iv, pt. ii, 1914.

[73]A New English Grammar, pt. i, pp. 437-8.

[74]The King's English, p. 322. See especially the quotation from Frederick Greenwood, the distinguished English journalist.

[75]Report of Edward J. Brundage, attorney-general of Illinois, on the East St. Louis massacre,Congressional Record, Jan. 7, 1918, p. 661.

[76]The King's English,op. cit.

[77]Oct. 1, 1864.

[78]At all, by the way, is often displaced byanyornone, as in "he don't lover herany" and "it didn't hurt menone."

[79]See the bibliography for the publication of Drs. Read and Pound.

[80]The only book that I can find definitely devoted to American sounds is A Handbook of American Speech, by Calvin L. Lewis; Chicago, 1916. It has many demerits. For example, the author gives az-sound to thesinvenison(p. 52). This is surely not American.

[81]Maryland edition, July 18, 1914, p. 1.

[82]Cf.Lounsbury: The Standard of Pronunciation in English, p. 172et seq.

[83]Stompis used only in the sense of to stamp with the foot. One alwaysstampsa letter. An analogue ofstomp, accepted in correct English, isstrop(e. g.,razor-strop), fromstrap.

[84]Our Own, Our Native Speech,McClure's Magazine, Oct., 1916.

Back to Index Next