Active VoiceIndicative ModePresentI bitePast PerfectI had of bitPresent PerfectI have bitFutureI will bitePastI bittenFuture Perfect(wanting)[Pg208]Subjunctive ModePresentIf I bitePast PerfectIf I had of bitPastIf I bittenPotential ModePresentI can bitePastI could bitePresent Perfect(wanting)Past PerfectI could of bitImperative(orOptative)ModeFutureI shall (or will) biteInfinitive Mode(wanting)Passive VoiceIndicative ModePresentI am bitPast PerfectI had been bitPresent PerfectI been bitFutureI will be bitPastI was bitFuture Perfect(wanting)Subjunctive ModePresentIf I am bitPast PerfectIf I had of been bitPastIf I was bitPotential ModePresentI can be bitPastI could be bitPresent Perfect(wanting)Past PerfectI could of been bitImperative Mode(wanting)Infinitive Mode(wanting)
Active Voice
Indicative Mode
[Pg208]
Subjunctive Mode
Potential Mode
Imperative(orOptative)Mode
Infinitive Mode
Passive Voice
Indicative Mode
Subjunctive Mode
Potential Mode
Imperative Mode
Infinitive Mode
A study of this paradigm reveals several plain tendencies. One has just been discussed: the addition of a degenerated form ofhaveto the preterite of the auxiliary, and its use in place of the auxiliary itself. Another is the use ofwillinstead ofshallin the first person future.Shallis confined to a sort of optative, indicating much more than mere intention, and even here it is yielding towill. Yet another is the consistent use of the transferred preterite in the passive. Here the rule in correct English is followed faithfully, though the perfect participle[Pg209]employed is not the English participle. "I ambroke" is a good example. Finally, there is the substitution ofwasforwereand ofamforbein the past and present of the subjunctive. In this last case American is in accord with the general movement of English, though somewhat more advanced.Be, in the Shakespearean form of "wherebethy brothers?" was expelled from the present indicative two hundred years ago, and survives today only in dialect. And as it thus yielded toarein the indicative, it now seems destined to yield toamandisin the subjunctive. It remains, of course, in the future indicative: "I willbe." In American its conjugation coalesces with that ofamin the following manner:
PresentI amPast PerfectI had of benPresent PerfectI bin (or ben)FutureI will bePastI wasFuture Perfect(wanting)
And in the subjunction:
PresentIf I amPast PerfectIf I had of benPastIf I was
All signs of the subjunctive, indeed, seem to be disappearing from vulgar American. One never hears "if Iwereyou," but always "if Iwasyou." In the third person the-sis not dropped from the verb. One hears, not "if shego," but "if shegoes." "If hebethe man" is never heard; it is always "if heis." This war upon the forms of the subjunctive, of course, extends to the most formal English. "In Old English," says Bradley,[52]"the subjunctive played as important a part as in modern German, and was used in much the same way. Its inflection differed in several respects from that of the indicative. But the only formal trace of the old subjunctive still remaining, except the use ofbeandwere, is the omission of the finalsin the third person singular. And even this is rapidly dropping out of use.... Perhaps in another generation the subjunctive forms will have ceased to exist except in the single instance ofwere, which serves a useful function, although we manage to[Pg210]dispense with a corresponding form in other verbs." Here, as elsewhere, unlettered American usage simply proceeds in advance of the general movement.Beand the omittedsare already dispensed with, and evenwerehas been discarded.
In the same way the distinction betweenwillandshall, preserved in correct English but already breaking down in the most correct American, has been lost entirely in the American common speech.Willhas displacedshallcompletely, save in the imperative. This preference extends to the inflections of both.Sha'n'tis very seldom heard; almost alwayswon'tis used instead. As forshould, it is displaced byought to(degenerated tooughterorought'a), and in its negative form byhadn't ought'a, as in "hehadn't oughtersaid that," reported by Charters. Lardner gives various redundant combinations ofshouldandought, as in "I don't feel as if Ishould ought toleave" and "theyshould not ought toof had." I have encountered the same form, but I don't think it is as common as the simpleought'a-forms. In the main,shouldis avoided, sometimes at considerable pains. Often its place is taken by the more positivedon't. Thus "Idon'tmind" is used instead of "Ishouldn'tmind."Don'thas also completely displaceddoesn't, which is very seldom heard. "Hedon't" and "theydon't" are practically universal. In the same wayain'thas displacedis not,am not,isn'tandaren't, and evenhave notandhaven't. One recalls a famous speech in a naval melodrama of twenty years ago: "Weain'tgot no manners, but we can fight like hell." Such forms as "heain'there," "Iain'tthe man," "themain'twhat I want" and "Iain'theerd of it" are common.
This extensive use ofain't, of course, is merely a single symptom of a general disregard of number, obvious throughout the verbs, and also among the pronouns, as we shall see. Charters gives many examples, among them, "howisUncle Wallace and Aunt Clara?" "youwas," "thereissix" and the incomparable "itain'tright to say, 'Heain'there today.'" In Lardner there are many more, for instance, "them Giants is not such rotten hitters,isthey?" "the peoplehasall wanted to shake hands with Matthewson and I" and "some of the menhas[Pg211]brung their wife along."Sez(=says), used as the preterite ofto say, shows the same confusion. One observes it again in such forms as "then Igoesup to him." Here the decay of number helps in what threatens to become a decay of tense. Examples of it are not hard to find. The average race-track follower of the humbler sort seldom says "Iwon$2," or even "Iwan$2," but almost always "Iwin$2." And in the same way he says "Iseehim come in," not "Isawhim" or "seenhim." Charters' materials offers other specimens, among them "wehelpdistributed the fruit," "sherecognize, hug, andkisshim" and "her fatheraskher if she intended doing what heask." Perhaps the occasional use ofeatas the preterite ofto eat, as in "Ieatbreakfast as soon as I got up," is an example of the same flattening out of distinctions. Lardner has many specimens, among them "if Weaver and them had not ofbeginkicking" and "they would ofknockdown the fence." I notice thatused, inused to be, is almost always reduced to simpleuse, as in "ituseto be the rule." One seldom, if ever, hears a cleardat the end. Here, of course, the elision of thedis due primarily to assimilation with thetofto—a second example of one form of decay aiding another form. But the tenses apparently tend to crumble without help. I frequently hear whole narratives in a sort of debased present: "Isaysto him.... Then heupsandsays.... Ilandhim one on the ear.... Hegoesdown and out, ..." and so on.[53]Still under the spell of our disintegrating inflections, we are prone to regard the tense inflections of the verb as absolutely essential, but there are plenty of languages that get on without them, and even in our own language children and foreigners often reduce them to a few simple forms. Some time ago an Italian contractor said to me "I havegothere often." Here one of our few surviving inflections was displaced by an analytical devise, and yet the man's meaning was quite clear, and it would be absurd to say that his sentence violated the inner spirit of English. That inner spirit, in fact, has inclined steadily toward "I havego" for a thousand years.[Pg212]
§ 4
The Pronoun—The following paradigm shows the inflections of the personal pronoun in the American common speech:
First PersonCommon GenderSingularPluralNominativeIwePossessive ConjointmyourPossessive AbsolutemineournObjectivemeusSecond PersonCommon GenderSingularNominativeyouyousPossessive ConjointyouryourPossessive AbsoluteyournyournObjectiveyouyousThird PersonMasculine GenderNominativehetheyPossessive ConjointhistheirPossessive AbsolutehisntheirnObjectivehimthemFeminine GenderNominativeshetheyPossessive ConjointhertheirPossessive AbsoluteherntheirnObjectiveherthemNeuter GenderNominativeittheyPossessive ConjointitstheirnPossessive AbsoluteitstheirObjectiveitthem
First Person
Common Gender
Second Person
Common Gender
Third Person
Masculine Gender
Feminine Gender
Neuter Gender
These inflections, as we shall see, are often disregarded in use, but nevertheless it is profitable to glance at them as they[Pg213]stand. The only variations that they show from standard English are the substitution ofnforsas the distinguishing mark of the absolute form of the possessive, and the attempt to differentiate between the logical and the merely polite plurals in the second person by adding the usual sign of the plural to the former. The use ofnin place ofsis not an American innovation. It is found in many of the dialects of English, and is, in fact, historically quite as sound as the use ofs. In John Wiclif's translation of the Bible (circa1380) the first sentence of the Sermon on the Mount (Mark v, 3) is made: "Blessed be the pore in spirit, for the kyngdam in hevenes isheren." And in his version of Luke xxiv, 24, is this: "And some ofourenwentin to the grave." Hereheren, (orherun) represents, of course, not the modernhers, buttheirs. In Anglo-Saxon the word washeora, and down to Chaucer's day a modified form of it,here, was still used in the possessive plural in place of the moderntheir, thoughtheyhad already displacedhiein the nominative.[54]But in John Purvey's revision of the Wiclif Bible, made a few years later,hernactually occurs in II Kings viii, 6, thus: "Restore thou to hir alle things that benhern." In Anglo-Saxon there had been no distinction between the conjoint and absolute forms of the possessive pronouns; the simple genitive sufficed for both uses. But with the decay of that language the surviving remnants of its grammar began to be put to service somewhat recklessly, and so there arose a genitive inflection of this genitive—a true double inflection. In the Northern dialects of English that inflection was made by simply addings, the sign of the possessive. In the Southern dialects the oldn-declension was applied, and so there arose such forms asminumandeowrum(=mineandyours), fromminandeower(=myandyour).[55]Meanwhile, the original simple genitive, now becomeyoure, also survived, and so the literature of[Pg214]the fourteenth century shows the three forms flourishing side by side:youre,youresandyouren. All of them are in Chaucer.
Thus,yourn,hern,hisn,ournandtheirn, whatever their present offense to grammarians, are of a genealogy quite as respectable as that ofyours,hers,his,oursandtheirs. Both forms represent a doubling of inflections, and hence grammatical debasement. On the side of theyours-form is the standard usage of the past five hundred years, but on the side of theyourn-form there is no little force of analogy and logic, as appears on turning tomineandthine. In Anglo-Saxon, as we have seen,mywasmin; in the same waythywasthin. During the decadence of the language the finalnwas dropped in both cases before nouns—that is, in the conjoint form—but it was retained in the absolute form. This usage survives to our own day. One says "mybook," but "the book ismine"; "thyfaith," but "I amthine."[56]Also, one says "nomatter," but "I havenone." Without question this retention of thenin these pronouns had something to do with the appearance of then-declension in the treatment ofyour,her,hisandour, and, aftertheirhad displacedherein the third person plural, intheir. And equally without question it supports the vulgar American usage today. What that usage shows is simply the strong popular tendency to make language as simple and as regular as possible—to abolish subtleties and exceptions. The difference between "hisbook" and "the book ishis'n" is exactly that betweenmyandmine,thyandthine, in the examples just given. "Perhaps it would have been better," says Bradley, "if the literary language had acceptedhisn, but from some cause it did not do so."[57]
As for the addition ofstoyouin the nominative and objective of the second person plural, it exhibits no more than an effort to give clarity to the logical difference between the true plural and the mere polite plural. In several other dialects of[Pg215]English the same desire has given rise to cognate forms, and there are even secondary devices in American. In the South, for example, the true plural is commonly indicated byyou-all, which, despite a Northern belief to the contrary, is never used in the singular by any save the most ignorant.[58]You-all, likeyous, simply meansyou-jointlyas opposed to theyouthat meansthou. Again, there is the form observed in "you canall of yougo to hell"—another plain effort to differentiate between singular and plural. The substitution ofyouforthougoes back to the end of the thirteenth century. It appeared in late Latin and in the other continental languages as well as in English, and at about the same time. In these languages the true singular survives alongside the transplanted plural, but English has dropped it entirely, save in its poetical and liturgical forms and in a few dialects. It passed out of ordinary polite speech before Elizabeth's day. By that time, indeed, its use had acquired an air of the offensive, such as it has today, save between intimates or to children, in Germany. Thus, at the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603, Sir Edward Coke, then attorney-general, displayed his animosity to Raleigh by addressing him asthou, and finally burst into the contemptuous "Ithouthee,thoutraitor!" And in "Twelfth Night" Sir Toby Belch urges Sir Andrew Aguecheek to provoke the disguised Viola to combat bythouingher. In our own time, with thou passed out entirely, even as a pronoun of contempt, the confusion betweenyouin the plural andyouin the singular presents plain difficulties to a man of limited linguistic resources. He gets around them by setting up a distinction that is well supported by logic and analogy. "I seenyous" is clearly separated from "I seenyou.". And in the conjoint position "yousguys" is separated from "youliar."
So much for the personal pronouns. As we shall see, they are used in such a manner that the distinction between the nominative and the objective forms, though still existing grammatically, has begun to break down. But first it may be well to glance at the demonstrative and relative pronouns. Of the former there[Pg216]are but two in English,thisandthat, with their plural forms,theseandthose. To them, American adds a third,them, which is also the personal pronoun of the third person, objective case.[59]In addition it has adopted certain adverbial pronouns,this-here,these-here,that-there,those-thereandthem-there, and set up inflections of the original demonstratives by analogy withmine,hisnandyourn, to wit,thisn,thesen,thatnandthosen. I present some examples of everyday use:
Themare the kind I like.Themmen all work here.Who isthis-hereSmith I hear about?These-hereare mine.That-theremedicine ain't no good.Those-therewops has all took to the woods.I wisht I had one ofthem-thereFords.Thisnis better'nthatn.I likethesenbetter'nthosen.
Themare the kind I like.
Themmen all work here.
Who isthis-hereSmith I hear about?
These-hereare mine.
That-theremedicine ain't no good.
Those-therewops has all took to the woods.
I wisht I had one ofthem-thereFords.
Thisnis better'nthatn.
I likethesenbetter'nthosen.
The origin of the demonstratives of thethisn-group is plain: they are degenerate forms ofthis-one,that-one, etc., just asnoneis a degenerate composition form ofno(t)-one. In every case of their use that I have observed the simple demonstratives might have been set free andoneactually substituted for the terminaln. But it must be equally obvious that they have been reinforced very greatly by the absolutes of thehisn-group, for in their relation to the original demonstratives they play the part of just such absolutes and are never used conjointly. Thus, one says, in American, "I takethisn" or "thisnis mine," but one never says "I takethisnhat" or "thisndog is mine." In this conjoint situation plainthisis always used, and the same rule[Pg217]applies tothese,thoseandthat.Them, being a newcomer among the demonstratives, has not yet acquired an inflection in the absolute. I have never heardthem'n, and it will probably never come in, for it is forbiddingly clumsy. One says, in American, both "themare mine" and "themcollars are mine."
This-here,these-here,that-there,those-thereandthem-thereare plainly combinations of pronouns and adverbs, and their function is to support the distinction between proximity, as embodied inthisandthese, and remoteness, as embodied inthat,thoseandthem. "This-herecoat is mine" simply means "this coat,here, or thispresentcoat, is mine." But the adverb promises to coalesce with the pronoun so completely as to obliterate all sense of its distinct existence, even as a false noun or adjective. As commonly pronounced,this-herebecomes a single word, somewhat likethish-yur, andthese-herebecomesthese-yur, andthat-thereandthem-therebecomethat-ereandthem-ere.Those-there, if I observed accurately, is still pronounced more distinctly, but it, too, may succumb to composition in time. The adverb will then sink to the estate of a mere inflectional particle, asonehas done in the absolutes of thethisn-group.Them, as a personal pronoun in the absolute, of course, is commonly pronouncedem, as in "I seenem," and sometimes its vowel is almost lost, but this is also the case in all save the most exact spoken English. Sweet and Lounsbury, following the German grammarians, argue that thisemis not really a debased form ofthem, but the offspring ofhem, which survived as the regular plural of the third person in the objective case down to the beginning of the fifteenth century. But in Americanthemis clearly pronounced as a demonstrative. I have never heard "emmen" or "emare the kind I like," but always "themmen" and "themare the kind I like."
The relative pronouns, so far as I have been able to make out, are declined as follows:
NominativewhowhichwhatthatPossessive ConjointwhosewhosePossessive AbsolutewhosenwhosenObjectivewhowhichwhatthat
[Pg218]
Two things will be noted in this paradigm. First there is the disappearance ofwhomas the objective form ofwho, and secondly there is the appearance of an inflected form ofwhosein the absolute, by analogy withmine,hisnandthesen.Whom, as we have seen, is fast disappearing from standard spoken American;[60]in the vulgar language it is already virtually extinct. Not only iswhoused in such constructions as "whodid you find there?" where even standard spoken English would tolerate it, but also in such constructions as "the manwhoI saw," "themwhoI trust in" and "towho?" Krapp explains this use ofwhoon the ground that there is a "general feeling," due to the normal word-order in English, that "the word which precedes the verb is the subject word, or at least the subject form."[61]But this explanation is probably fanciful. Among the plain people no such "general feeling" for case exists. Their only "general feeling" is a prejudice against case inflections in any form whatsoever. They usewhoin place ofwhomsimply because they can discern no logical difference between the significance of the one and the significance of the other.
Whosenis obviously the offspring of the other absolutes inn. In the conjoint relation plainwhoseis always used, as in "whosehat is that?" and "the manwhosedog bit me." But in the absolutewhosenis often substituted, as in "if it ain'thisn, thenwhosenis it?" The imitation is obvious. There is an analogous form ofwhich, to wit,whichn, resting heavily onwhich one. Thus, "whichndo you like?" and "I didn't saywhichn" are plainly variations of "which onedo you like?" and "I didn't saywhich one." That, as we have seen, has a like form,thatn, but never, of course, in the relative situation. "I likethatn," is familiar, but "the onethatnI like" is never heard. Ifthat, as a relative, could be used absolutely, I have no doubt that it would change tothatn, as it does as a demonstrative. So withwhat. As things stand, it is sometimes substituted forthat, as in "them's the kindwhatI like." Joined tobutit can also take the place ofthatin other situations, as in "I don't knowbut what."[Pg219]
The substitution ofwhoforwhomin the objective case, just noticed, is typical of a general movement toward breaking down all case distinctions among the pronouns, where they make their last stand in English and its dialects. This movement, of course, is not peculiar to vulgar American; nor is it of recent beginning. So long ago as the fifteenth century the old clear distinction betweenye, nominative, andyou, objective, disappeared, and today the latter is used in both cases. Sweet says that the phonetic similarity betweenyeandthee, the objective form of the true second singular, was responsible for this confusion.[62]At the startyeactually went over to the objective case, and the usage thus established shows itself in such survivors of the period asharkee(hark ye) andlook ye. In modern spoken English, indeed,youin the objective often has a sound far more like that ofyethan like that ofyou, as, for example, in "how do y' do?" and in American its vowel takes the neutral form of theein the definite article, and the word becomes a sort of shortenedyuh. But whenever emphasis is laid upon it,youbecomes quite distinct, even in American. In "I meanyou," for example, there is never any chance of mistaking it forye.
In Shakespeare's time the other personal pronouns of the objective case threatened to followyouinto the nominative, and there was a compensatory movement of the nominative pronouns toward the objective. Lounsbury has collected many examples.[63]Marlowe used "is ithimyou seek?" "'tisherI esteem" and "northeenorthem, shall want"; Fletcher used "'tisherI admire"; Shakespeare himself used "that'sme." Contrariwise, Webster used "what difference is between the duke andI?" and Greene used "nor earth nor heaven shall part my love andI." Krapp has unearthed many similar examples from the Restoration dramatists.[64]Etheredge used "'tisthem," "it may behim," "let you andI" and "nor is itme"; Matthew Prior, in a famous couplet, achieved this:[Pg220]
For thou art a girl as much brighter thanher.As he was a poet sublimer thanme.
For thou art a girl as much brighter thanher.As he was a poet sublimer thanme.
The free exchange continued, in fact, until the eighteenth century was well advanced; there are examples of it in Addison. Moreover, it survived, at least in part, even the attack that was then made upon it by the professors of the new-born science of English grammar, and to this day "it isme" is still in more or less good colloquial use. Sweet thinks that it is supported in such use, though not, of course, grammatically, by the analogy of the correct "it ishe" and "it isshe." Lounsbury, following Dean Alford, says it came into English in imitation of the Frenchc'est moi, and defends it as at least as good as "it isI."[65]The contrary form, "between you andI," has no defenders, and is apparently going out. But in the shape of "between my wife andI" it is seldom challenged, at least in spoken English.
All these liberties with the personal pronouns, however, fade to insignificance when put beside the thoroughgoing confusion of the case forms in vulgar American. "Usfellers" is so far established in the language that "wefellers," from the mouth of a car conductor, would seem almost an affectation. So, too, is "meandherare friends." So, again, are "I seen you andher," "herand I set down together," "himand his wife," and "I knowed it washer." Here are some other characteristic examples of the use of the objective forms in the nominative from Charters and Lardner:
Meandherwas both late.His brother is taller thanhim.That little boy wasme.Usgirls went home.They were John andhim.Herand little Al is to stay here.She says she thinksusand the Allens.If Weaver andthemhad not of begin kicking.But notme.Himand I are friends.Meandthemare friends.
Meandherwas both late.
His brother is taller thanhim.
That little boy wasme.
Usgirls went home.
They were John andhim.
Herand little Al is to stay here.
She says she thinksusand the Allens.
If Weaver andthemhad not of begin kicking.
But notme.
Himand I are friends.
Meandthemare friends.
[Pg221]
Less numerous, but still varied and plentiful, are the substitutions of nominative forms for objective forms:
She gave it to mother andI.She took all ofwechildren.I want you to meetheand I at 29th street.He gaveheand I both some.It is going to cost me $6 a week for a room forsheand the baby.Anything she has is O. K. forIand Florrie.
She gave it to mother andI.
She took all ofwechildren.
I want you to meetheand I at 29th street.
He gaveheand I both some.
It is going to cost me $6 a week for a room forsheand the baby.
Anything she has is O. K. forIand Florrie.
Here are some grotesque confusions, indeed. Perhaps the best way to get at the principles underlying them is to examine first, not the cases of their occurrence, but the cases of their non-occurrence. Let us begin with the transfer of the objective form to the nominative in the subject relation. "Meandherwas both late" is obviously sound American; one hears it, or something like it, on the streets every day. But one never hears "mewas late" or "herwas late" or "uswas late" or "himwas late" or "themwas late." Again, one hears "usgirls was there" but never "uswas there." Yet again, one hears "herand John was married," but never "herwas married." The distinction here set up should be immediately plain. It exactly parallels that betweenherandhern,ourandourn,theirandtheirn: the tendency, as Sweet says, is "to merge the distinction of nominative and objective in that of conjoint and absolute."[66]The nominative, in the subject relation, takes the usual nominative form only when it is in immediate contact with its verb. If it be separated from its verb by a conjunction or any other part of speech, even including another pronoun, it takes the objective form. Thus "mewent home" would strike even the most ignorant shopgirl as "bad grammar," but she would use "meand my friend went," or "meandhim," or "heandher," or "meandthem" without the slightest hesitation. What is more, if the separation be effected by a conjunction and another pronoun, the other pronoun also changes to the objective form, even though its contact with the verb may be immediate. Thus one hears "meandherwas there," not "meandshe";herand "himkissed," not "herandhe." Still more, this second pronoun[Pg222]commonly undergoes the same inflection even when the first member of the group is not another pronoun, but a noun. Thus one hears "John andherwere married," not "John andshe." To this rule there is but one exception, and that is in the case of the first person pronoun, especially in the singular. "Himandmeare friends" is heard often, but "himandIare friends" is also heard.Iseems to suggest the subject very powerfully; it is actually the subject of perhaps a majority of the sentences uttered by an ignorant man. At all events, it resists the rule, at least partially, and may even do so when actually separated from the verb by another pronoun, itself in the objective form, as for example, in "Iandhimwere there."
In the predicate relation the pronouns respond to a more complex regulation. When they follow any form of the simple verb of being they take the objective form, as in "it'sme," "it ain'thim," and "I amhim," probably because the transitiveness of this verb exerts a greater pull than its function as a mere copula, and perhaps, too, because the passive naturally tends to put the speaker in the place of the object. "I seenhe" or "he kissedshe" or "he struckI" would seem as ridiculous to an ignorant American as to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his instinct for simplicity and regularity naturally tends to make him reduce all similar expressions, or what seem to him to be similar expressions, to coincidence with the more seemly "I seenhim." After all, the verb of being is fundamentally transitive, and, in some ways, the most transitive of all verbs, and so it is not illogical to bring its powers over the pronoun into accord with the powers exerted by the others. I incline to think that it is some such subconscious logic, and not the analogy of "it ishe," as Sweet argues, that has brought "it isme" to conversational respectability, even among rather careful speakers of English.[67]
But against this use of the objective form in the nominative[Pg223]position after the verb of being there also occurs in American a use of the nominative form in the objective position, as in "she gave it to mother andI" and "she took all ofwechildren." What lies at the bottom of it seems to be a feeling somewhat resembling that which causes the use of the objective form before the verb, but exactly contrary in its effects. That is to say, the nominative form is used when the pronoun is separated from its governing verb, whether by a noun, a noun-phrase or another pronoun, as in "she gave it to mother andI," "she took all ofwechildren" and "he paid her andI" respectively. But here usage is far from fixed, and one observes variations in both directions—that is, toward using the correct objective when the pronoun is detached from the verb, and toward using the nominative even when it directly follows the verb. "She gave it to mother andme," "she took all ofuschildren" and "he paid her andme" would probably sound quite as correct, to a Knight of Pythias, as the forms just given. And at the other end Charters and Lardner report such forms as "I want you to meetheandI" and "it is going to cost me $6 a week for a room forsheand the baby." I have noticed, however, that, in the overwhelming main, the use of the nominative is confined to the pronoun of the first person, and particularly to its singular. Here again we have an example of the powerful way in whichIasserts itself. And superimposed upon that influence is a cause mentioned by Sweet in discussing "between you andI."[68]It is a sort of by-product of the pedagogical war upon "it isme." "As such expressions," he says, "are still denounced by the grammars, many people try to avoid them in speech as well as in writing. The result of this reaction is that themein such constructions as 'between John andme' and 'he saw John andme' sounds vulgar and ungrammatical, and is consequently corrected intoI." Here the pedagogues, seeking to impose an inelastic and illogical grammar upon a living speech, succeed only in corrupting it still more.
Followingthanandasthe American uses the objective form of the pronoun, as in "he is taller thanme" and "such asher."[Pg224]He also uses it followinglike, but not when, as often happens, he uses the word in place ofasoras if. Thus he says "do it likehim," but "do it likehedoes" and "she looks likeshewas sick." What appears here is an instinctive feeling that these words, followed by a pronoun only, are not adverbs, but prepositions, and that they should have the same power to put the pronoun into an oblique case that other prepositions have. Just as "the taller ofwe" would sound absurd to all of us, so "taller thanhe," to the unschooled American, sounds absurd. This feeling has a good deal of respectable support. "Asher" was used by Swift, "thanme" by Burke, and "thanwhom" by Milton. The brothers Fowler show that, in some cases, "thanhim," is grammatically correct and logically necessary.[69]For example, compare "I love you more thanhim" and "I love you more thanhe." The first means "I love you more than (I love)him"; the second, "I love you more thanhe(loves you)." In the firsthimdoes not refer toI, which is nominative, but toyou, which is objective, and so it is properly objective also. But the American, of course, useshimeven when the preceding noun is in the nominative, save only when another verb follows the pronoun. Thus, he says, "I love you better thanhim," but "I love you better thanhedoes."
In the matter of the reflexive pronouns the American vulgate exhibits forms which plainly show that it is the spirit of the language to regardself, not as an adjective, which it is historically, but as a noun. This confusion goes back to Anglo-Saxon days; it originated at a time when both the adjectives and the nouns were losing their old inflections. Such forms asPetrussylf(=Peter's self),Cristsylf(=Christ's self) andIcsylf(=I,self) then came into use, and along with them came combinations ofselfand the genitive, still surviving inhisselfandtheirselves(ortheirself). Down to the sixteenth century these forms remained in perfectly good usage. "Each forhisself," for example, was written by Sir Philip Sidney, and is to be found in the dramatists of the time, though modern editors always change it tohimself. How the dative pronoun got itself[Pg225]fastened uponselfin the third person masculine and neuter is one of the mysteries of language, but there it is, and so, against all logic, history and grammatical regularity,himself,themselvesanditself(notits-self) are in favor today. But the American, as usual, inclines against these illogical exceptions to the rule set bymyself. I constantly hearhisselfandtheirselves, as in "he done ithisself" and "they don't knowtheirselves." Sometimestheirselfis substituted for theirselves, as in "they all seen ittheirself." Also, the emphaticownis often inserted between the pronoun and the noun, as in "let every man save hisownself."
The American pronoun does not necessarily agree with its noun in number. I find "I can tell each one whattheymake," "each fellow puttheirfoot on the line," "nobody can do whattheylike" and "she was one ofthesekind of people" in Charters, and "I am not the kind of man that is always thinking abouttheirrecord," "if he was to hit a man in the head ...theywould thinktheirnose tickled" in Lardner. At the bottom of this error there is a real difficulty: the lack of a pronoun of the true common gender in English, corresponding to the Frenchsoiandson.His, after a noun or pronoun connoting both sexes, often sounds inept, andhis-or-heris intolerably clumsy. Thus the inaccurate plural is often substituted. The brothers Fowler have discovered "anybody else who have onlythemselvesin view" in Richardson and "everybody is discontented withtheirlot" in Disraeli, and Ruskin once wrote "if a customer wishes you to injuretheirfoot." In spoken American, even the most careful,theyandtheiroften appear; I turn to theCongressional Recordat random and in two minutes find "if anyone will look at the bank statementstheywill see."[70]In the lower reaches of the language the plural seems to get into every sentence of any complexity, even when the preceding noun or pronoun is plainly singular.[Pg226]
§ 5
The Adverb—All the adverbial endings in English, save-ly, have gradually fallen into decay; it is the only one that is ever used to form new adverbs. At earlier stages of the language various other endings were used, and some of them survive in a few old words, though they are no longer employed in making new words. The Anglo-Saxon endings were-eand-lice. The latter was, at first, merely an-e-ending to adjectives in-lic, but after a time it attained to independence and was attached to adjectives not ending in-lic. In early Middle English this-licechanges to-like, and later on to-liand-ly. Meanwhile, the-e-ending, following the-e-endings of the nouns, adjectives and verbs, ceased to be pronounced, and so it gradually fell away. Thus a good many adverbs came to be indistinguishable from their ancestral adjectives, for example,hardin topull hard,loudinto speak loud, anddeepinto bury deep(=Anglo-Saxon,dĕop-e). Worse, not a few adverbs actually became adjectives, for example,wide, which was originally the Anglo-Saxon adjectivewid(=wide) with the adverbial-e-ending, andlate, which was originally the Anglo-Saxon adjectivelaet(=slow) with the same ending.
The result of this movement toward identity in form was a confusion between the two classes of words, and from the time of Chaucer down to the eighteenth century one finds innumerable instances of the use of the simple adjective as an adverb. "He will answertrewe" is in Sir Thomas More; "andsoftunto himself he sayd" in Chaucer; "the singers sangloud" in the Revised Version of the Bible (Nehemiah xii, 42), and "indifferentwell" in Shakespeare. Even after the purists of the eighteenth century began their corrective work this confusion continued. Thus, one finds, "the people aremiserablepoor" in Hume, "howunworthyyou treated mankind" inThe Spectator, and "wonderfulsilly" in Joseph Butler. To this day the grammarians battle with the barbarism, still without complete success; every new volume of rules and regulations for those who would speak by the book is full of warnings against it. Among[Pg227]the great masses of the plain people, it goes without saying, it flourishes unimpeded. The cautions of the school-marm, in a matter so subtle and so plainly lacking in logic or necessity, are forgotten as quickly as her prohibition of the double negative, and thereafter the adjective and the adverb tend more and more to coalesce in a part of speech which serves the purposes of both, and is simple and intelligible and satisfying.
Charters gives a number of characteristic examples of its use: "wounded verybad," "Isurewas stiff," "drank out of a cupeasy," "he looked upquick." Many more are in Lardner: "a chance to see me workregular," "I am glad I was lucky enough to marryhappy," "I beat themeasy," and so on. And others fall upon the ear every day: "he done itproper," "he done himselfproud," "she was dressedneat," "she wasawfulugly," "the horse ranO. K.," "itnearfinished him," "it sellsquick," "I like itfine," "he ethoggish," "she actedmean," "they keep companysteady." The bob-tailed adverb, indeed, enters into a large number of the commonest coins of vulgar speech.Near-silk, I daresay, is properlynearly-silk. The grammarians protest that "runslow" should be "runslowly." Butnear-silkand "runslow" remain, and so do "to be inbad," "to play it upstrong" and their brothers. What we have here is simply an incapacity to distinguish any ponderable difference between adverb and adjective, and beneath it, perhaps, is the incapacity, already noticed in dealing with "it isme," to distinguish between the common verb of being and any other verb. If "itisbad" is correct, then why should "itleaksbad" be incorrect? It is just this disdain of purely grammatical reasons that is at the bottom of most of the phenomena visible in vulgar American, and the same impulse is observable in all other languages during periods of inflectional decay. During the highly inflected stage of a language the parts of speech are sharply distinct, but when inflections fall off they tend to disappear. The adverb, being at best the step-child of grammar—as the old Latin grammarians used to say, "Omnis pars orationis migrat in adverbium"—is one of the chief victims of this anarchy. John Horne Tooke, despairing of bringing it to any[Pg228]order, even in the most careful English, called it, in his "Epea Ptercenta," "the common sink and repository of all heterogeneous and unknown corruptions."
Where an obvious logical or lexical distinction has grown up between an adverb and its primary adjective the unschooled American is very careful to give it its terminal-ly. For example, he seldom confuseshardandhardly,scarceandscarcely,realandreally. These words convey different ideas.Hardmeans unyielding;hardlymeans barely.Scarcemeans present only in small numbers;scarcelyis substantially synonymous withhardly.Realmeans genuine;reallyis an assurance of veracity. So, again, withlateandlately. Thus, an American says "I don't know,scarcely," not "I don't know,scarce"; "he diedlately," not "he diedlate." But in nearly all such cases syntax is the preservative, not grammar. These adverbs seem to keep their tails largely because they are commonly put before and not after verbs, as in, for example, "Ihardly(orscarcely) know," and "Ireallymean it." Many other adverbs that take that position habitually are saved as well, for example,generally,usually,surely,certainly. But when they follow verbs they often succumb, as in "I'll do itsure" and "I seen himrecent." And when they modify adjectives they sometimes succumb, too, as in "it wassurehot." Practically all the adverbs made of adjectives in-ylose the terminal-lyand thus become identical with their adjectives. I have never heardmightilyused; it is alwaysmighty, as in "he hit himmightyhard." So withfilthy,dirty,nasty,lowly,naughtyand their cognates. One hears "he acteddirty," "he spokenasty," "the child behavednaughty," and so on. Here even standard English has had to make concessions to euphony.Cleanlilyis seldom used;,cleanlynearly always takes its place. And the use ofillyis confined to pedants.
Vulgar American, like all the higher forms of American and all save the most precise form of written English, has abandoned the old inflections ofhere,thereandwhere, to wit,hitherandhence,thitherandthence,whitherandwhence. These fossil remains of dead cases are fast disappearing from the language.[Pg229]In the case ofhither(=to here) even the preposition has been abandoned. One says, not "I cameto here," but simply "I camehere." In the case ofhence, however,from hereis still used, and so withfrom thereandfrom where. Finally, it goes without saying that the common American tendency to add-sto such adverbs astowardsis carried to full length in the vulgar language. One constantly hears, not onlysomewheresandforwards, but evennowaysandanyways. Here we have but one more example of the movement toward uniformity and simplicity.Anywaysis obviously fully supported bysidewaysandalways.
§ 6