Skip to main content

Full text of "Modern English, its growth and present use"

See other formats 


MODERN  ENGLISH 

ITS  GROWTH   AND   PRESENT  USB 


MODERN  ENGLISH 

ITS  GROWTH  AND  PRESENT  USE 

BY 

GEORGE  PHILIP  KRAPP,  Pn.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ENGLISH  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CINCINNATI 
AUTHOR  OF  "THE  ELEMENTS  OF  ENGLISH  GRAMMAR" 


CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

NEW  YORK  CHICAGO  BOSTON 


PE 
1075 

Kl 


COPYRIGHT,  1909,  BY 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America 
G 


To 
BRANDER    MATTHEWS 

MASTER   OF   MODERN   ENGLISH 

THIS   VOLUME 

18  INSCRIBED   BY   HIS   FRIEND   AND   DEBTOR 

THE    AUTHOR 


PREFACE 


THIS  book  is  not  designed  to  do  away  with  the  neces- 
sity for  using  the  dictionaries,  grammars,  and  detailed 
histories  of  the  English  language,  but  to  prepare  the 
way  for  the  more  profitable  and  intelligent  use  of  these 
books.  The  grammars  and  the  dictionaries  are  the  mines 
in  which  the  crude  materials,  the  natural  resources,  of 
the  language  are  stored ;  the  principles  of  development 
appearing  in  language,  the  opinions  which  men  hold  with 
respect  to 'the  use  of  language,  these  are  the  appliances 
and  the  machinery  by  means  of  which  the  riches  of  the 
dictionaries  and  encyclopedias  of  fact  may  be  made  avail- 
able for  effective  command  over  language.  Some  of  the 
more  important  of  these  principles  and  opinions  it  is  the 
purpose  of  this  book  to  present. 

The  generalizations  here  set  forth  are  some  of  them 
the  commonplaces  of  the  historical  study  of  language. 
For  stating  them  again  in  his  own  way,  the  author  does 
riot  feel  that  any  apology  is  necessary.  They  are  given 
as  simply  as  possible  for  the  advantage  of  those  readers 
and  students  who  wish  to  be  informed  as  to  the  results 
of  the  modern  scientific  study  of  language,  but  who 
are  not  themselves  professional  linguists.  The  book  is 
untechnical,  but,  the  author  hopes,  not  unscholarly. 
Attention  is  called  in  the  brief  bibliography  at  the  end 
of  the  volume  to  representative  works  which  may  be 


viii  PREFACE 

consulted  by  those  who  wish  to  enter  into  the  sub- 
jects treated  more  fully  than  the  limits  of  this  volume 
permitted. 

Perhaps  fuller  citations  of  literary  authorities  may 
be  expected  in  discussions  of  points  of  divided  use  than 
have  been  given.  In  general,  however,  it  does  not  seem 
to  the  author  that  the  appeal  to  literary  authority  is  the 
proper  method  of  attack  in  examining  disputed  ques- 
tions of  speech,  spoken  or  written,  and  that  very  little 
is  gained  by  an  elaborate  assemblage  of  examples  from 
literary  sources  to  confirm  or  to  disprove  a  point  of 
present  use.  Where  there  is  a  real  difference  of  prac- 
tice —  and  this,  it  may  be  pointed  out,  is  relatively 
infrequent  —  nine  times  out  of  ten  it  would  be  as  easy 
to  support  one  side  as  the  other  by  the  testimony  of 
literary  authority.  Past  literary  use  is  only  one  of  many 
tests  that  must  be  applied  in  determining  present  use. 
The  reading  of  literary  English  should  strengthen  the 
habitual  and  unconscious  feeling  for  expression  by 'which 
one  acquires  a  large,  a  sure,  and  a  varied  sense  of  the 
possible  values  of  language.  It  should  suggest  what 
may  be  done  with  language  by  showing  what  has  been 
done  with  it.  Literary  English,  indeed,  should  be  re- 
garded in  the  same  way  as  spoken  English.  Both  are 
forms  of  expression  which  have  to  be  reduced  to  natural 
and  unconscious  habit  before  they  can  be  said  to  have 
been  mastered.  Now  nothing  hinders  such  mastery 
so  much  as  a  meticulous  respect  for  the  authority  of 
literary  practice.  De  Quincey  once  said  that  authors 
are  a  dangerous  class  for  any  language.  He  meant, 
of  course,  that  the  literary  habit  of  mind  is  likely  to 
prove  dangerous  for  a  language.  It  is  likely  to  prove 
dangerous  because  it  so  often  leads  a  speaker  or  writer 


PREFACE  ix 

to  distrust  natural  and  unconscious  habit,  even  when 
it  is  right,  and  to  put  in  its  stead  some  conscious  theory 
of  literary  propriety.  Such  a  tendency,  however,  is 
directly  opposed  to  the  true  feeling  for  idiomatic  Eng- 
lish. It  destroys  the  sense  of  security,  the  assurance 
of  perfect  congruity  between  thought  and  expression, 
which  the  unliterary  and  unacademic  speaker  and  writer 
often  has,  and  which,  with  both  literary  and  unliterary, 
is  the  basis  for  all  expressive  use  of  language.  The 
source  of  authority  in  deciding  questions  of  propriety 
in  form,  questions  which  naturally  arise  less  and  less 
frequently  as  one  acquires  a  sure  sense  of  the  expressive 
value  of  language,  lies  not  in  past  use,  but  in  what 
might  be  called  future  use,  that  is,  in  the  effectiveness 
of  the  expression  upon  the  minds  of  those  who  are  to  be 
the  receivers  of  it.  But  enough  —  perhaps  too  much 
—  has  been  said  upon  this  subject  in  the  body  of  the 
book,  and  it  may  be  left  here  with  the  statement  that 
altho  good  modern  English  derives  much  from  tradi- 
tional literary  English,  the  final  test  of  its  goodness 
or  its  badness  is  to  be  found  always  in  immediate  and 
not  in  past  use. 

To  the  various  excellent  histories  of  the  English 
language  by  Emerson,  Lounsbury,  Jespersen,  Toller, 
and  Bradley,  as  well  as  to  more  specialized  studies  and 
essays,  the  author  gratefully  acknowledges  his  general 
indebtedness.  Wherever  this  indebtedness  is  specific, 
the  endeavor  has  been  to  give  the  credit  where  it  is  due. 
Above  all,  the  New  English  Dictionary  has  been  con- 
stantly and  unfailingly  helpful.  This  work  really  holds 
the  mirror  up  to  nature.  It  does  not  use  the  language 
of  the  imagination,  but  it  is  an  amazing  record  of  the 
workings  of  the  imagination.  One  who  wishes  to  know 


x  PREFACE 

the  English  language  cannot  do  better  than  give  his 
days  and  his  nights  to  the  study  of  the  New  English 
Dictionary.  To  those  friends  who  have  discussed  with 
him  the  ideas  which  the  volume  contains,  the  author 
acknowledges  an  indebtedness  not  compensated  by  this 
formal  recognition.  Among  these  friendly  disputants 
lie  would  mention  in  particular  Prof.  A.  H.  Thorndike, 
of  Columbia  University,  Mr.  J.  G.  Bowman,  Secretary 
of  the  Carnegie  Foundation,  and  Mr.  C.  M.  Baker, 
Headmaster  of  Latin  in  the  Horace  Mann  School. 

G.  P.  K. 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CINCINNATI 
June,  1909 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I  INTRODUCTION 3 

II   THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE 15 

A-  III  THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE 44 

IV   ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS 56 

V   ENGLISH  SOUNDS 99 

J  VI  ENGLISH  WORDS "  183 

VII  ENGLISH  GRAMMAR 286 

VIII   CONCLUSION 825 

APPENDIX 

THE  OLD  ENGLISH  CHRONICLE,  FOL.  la.    THE  PAR- 
DONER'S TALE,  FOL.  306a.    THE  FIRST  FOLIO  OF 

SHAKSPERE.    LYCIDAS,  LL.  165-193      ....  335 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 343 

INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 349 

INDEX  OF  WORDS  .                             .     .               ...  353 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

The  Old  English  Chronicle,  Laud  MS.  636,  fol.  la  .  .  25 
Chaucer's  Pardoner's  Tale,  Cambridge  Univ.  MS.  G.  G. 

4.  27,  fol  306 81 

Shakspere,  First  Folio,  Merchant  of  Venice,  IV,  1, 

119-152 161 

Autograph  of  Milton's  Lycidas,  11.  165-193  ....  307 


MODERN   ENGLISH 


MODERN  ENGLISH 


i 

INTRODUCTION 

1.  History  and  Politics.     History,  according  to  the 
saying   of    a   distinguished  modern  historian,   is   past 
politics.     To  the  contemporary  observer,  the  practical 

-  measures  supported  and  opposed  by  the  various  rival 
political  parties  seem  of  only  passing  significance  be- 
cause they  arise  out  of  the  immediate  daily  problems 
and  needs  of  actual  life.  When  these  same  measures, 
however,  are  viewed  in  the  perspective  of  years,  they 
are  seen  then  not  to  be  independent  and  unrelated. 
More  or  less  unconsciously  to  themselves,  the  practical 
politicians  help  or  retard  certain  large  principles  of 
development  in  the  life  of  a  people.  Present  politics  is 
history  in  the  making. 

2.  The  History  of  Language.    In  the  same  way  the 
history  of  a  language  is  merely  the  record  of  the  practi- 
cal every-day  speech  of  successive  generations.     Every 
person  who  speaks  or  writes  a  language,  who  hands  on 
from  one  speaker  to  another  any  of  the  traditions  of  the 
language  is,  in  so  far,  a  factor  in  the  historical  growth 
of  the  language.    And  the  whole  history  of  the  language 
is  made  up  of  the  sum  of  the  individual  acts  of  all  those 
who  in  past  times  have  used  the  language  in  response 


4  MODERN   ENGLISH 

to  the  immediate  practical  needs  of  life.  Just  as  poli- 
tics is  history  in  the  making,  so  present,  every-day 
speech  and  writing  is  the  history  of  the  language  in  the 
making. 

Another  conclusion  of  the  modern  political  historians 
is  applicable  to  the  history  of  language.  It  is  a  very 
general  opinion  among  historians  that  the  justification 
of  the  study  of  the  history  of  past  periods  is  to  be  found 
in  the  application  of  the  results  of  such  study  to  the 
conditions  of  present  life.  Man  learns  to  know  himself 
better,  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  his  public  and  private 
life  better,  from  having  observed  the  consequences  of 
the  actions  of  men  in  other  days.  So  also  by  the  study 
of  the  history  of  his  speech  he  learns  to  adjust  himself 
more  wisely  to  the  conditions  of  present  speech.  He 
learns  that  contemporary  speech  is  not,  on  the  one  hand, 
a  chaos  of  individual  instances,  nor  is  it,  on  the  other, 
governed  according  to  the  decrees  of  a  rigid,  theoretical 
system.  He  perceives  that  it  is  a  living  thing,  and  that 
the  principles  which  it  illustrates  in  its  growth  have  all 
the  flexibility  and  variety  of  life.  To  enable  a  speaker 
or  writer  to  realize  this  spirit,  or  life,  of  his  own  present 
speech  is  one  of  the  main  ends  of  the  historical  study 
of  language. 

3.  The  Function  of  Language.  The  effort  to  under- 
stand this  spirit,  to  find  out  what  the  tendencies  of  one's 
native  speech  are,  good  and  bad,  is  beset  with  many 
difficulties.  The  uncertainty  of  the  bearing  of  present 
events  always  makes  difference  of  opinion  possible.  If 
we  knew  exactly  the  future  significance  of  an  action, 
whether  in  politics,  in  personal  conduct,  or  in  speech,  we 
should  doubtless  all  hold  the  same  opinion  with  respect 


INTRODUCTION  5 

fco  that  action.  But  the  future  does  not  so  easily  yield 
up  its  secrets,  and  our  only  guides  are  inferences  drawn 
from  the  observation  of  the  past  and  the  present. 
There  is  always  one  ground  of  inference,  however, 
which  offers  a  firm  foothold.  Our  opinions  with  respect 
to  an  action  are  naturally  determined  by  the  value  of 
that  action  in  attaining  the  end  towards  which  the  actor 
is  striving.  Our  attitude  towards  any  question  of  lan- 
guage should  consequently  be  determined  by  the  pur- 
pose and  the  function  of  language,  just  as  the  value  of 
any  political  action  is  determined  by  its  serving  or  not 
serving  the  purpose  for  which  the  state  exists.  What, 
then,  is  the  function)_oOangiiaga?  Briefly  answered, 
language  is  a  form  of  social  custom  and  its/function  is 
the  expression  of  social  ideas.  Language  as  social  cus- 
tom means  that  it  has  been  slowly  developed  by  man- 
kind in  the  social  relations  of  men  to  each  other.  It  is 
closely  paralleled  in  its  development  by  other  kinds  of 
social  custom.  The  laws  governing  rights  of  property, 
of  individual  liberty,  of  self-defense,  the  moral  laws, 
such  as  those  directed  against  lying,  deception,  and  in- 
sincerity, the  rules  of  conduct  in  minor  matters,  such  as 
have  to  do  with  behavior  and  good  breeding,  —  all  these 
have  grown  up  as  the  result  of  the  intercourse  of  Jnan 
with  man  in  social  life.  The  habits,  or  the  rules,  of 
such  intercourse,  through  a  long  succession  of  genera- 
tions have  fixed  themselves  in  the  life  of  the  people  as 
their  social  customs.  Whether  they  are  reduced  to 
writing,  as  is  generally  the  case  with  criminal  law,  or 
are  merely  held  as  the  traditional  rules  of  conduct  of  a 
people,  they  are  always  in  their  origins  the  customary 
rules  of  action  which  have  arisen  out  of  the  practical 


6  MODERN  ENGLISH 

exigencies  of  one  man's  trying  to  live  on  terms  of  social 
understanding  with  another. 

4.  Speech  as  Social  Custom.  The  special  function 
of  speech  as  social  custom  is  the  expression  of  social 
ideas.  If  men  are  to  live  with  each  other,  if  they  are 
not  to  be  like  stocks  and  stones,  then  they  must  have 
some  means  of  conveying  to  each  other  their  needs, 
their  desires,  their  ideas,  their  aspirations.  This  they 
might  do  by  various  means.  So  long  as  the  ideas  were 
simple  and  primitive,  they  might  be  conveyed  by  very 
crude  means.  A  brandished  club  might  serve  to  indi- 
cate one's  sense  of  the  right  of  possession  in  a  piece  of 
disputed  property.  But  it  is  one  of  the  characteristics 
of  man  as  man  that  the  ideas  which  he  wishes  to  con- 
vey to  his  fellow-men  have  not  remained  thus  simple 
and  crude.  The  social  intercourse  of  men  has  become 
extremely  complex,  both  emotionally  and  intellectually, 
and,  corresponding  to  this  complexity,  there  has  bee  a 
an  equal  growth  in  the  variety  and  the  subtlety  of  the 
customs  of  speech.  Out  of  the  practical  needs  of  com- 
munication has  arisen  the  vast  fabric  of  human  lan- 
guage. Manifestly,  then,  the  best  language  being  that 
which  most  adequately  realizes  the  function  of  lan- 
guage, that  is  the  best  which  enables  men  to  express 
themselves  most  fully  and  satisfactorily  in  their  rela- 
tions to  each  other.  This  is  the  ideal  towards  which 
language  strives.  In  the  animal  world  we  speak  of 
degeneration  when  certain  functions  of  the  organism 
necessary  to  the  preservation  of  its  life  and  the  exist- 
ence of  its  species  become  weakened.  In  the  same  way 
we  may  speak  of  degeneration  in  a  language  when  it 
changes  in  such  a  way  that  it  becomes  less  capable  of 


INTRODUCTION  7 

performing  the  functions  for  which  language  exists; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  we  may  speak  of  growth  and 
improvement  in  language  as  it  becomes  more  and  more 
effective  in  enabling  men  to  understand  each  other. 

5.  The  Speech  of  a  Democracy.  The  necessity  of 
realizing  in  an  ever-increasing  degree  this  ideal  function 
of  language  is  one  that  is  peculiarly  incumbent  upon  a 
democracy.  The  best  national  speech  for  a  democracy 
is  that  which  enables  it  to  be  most  fully  self -expressive. 
It  is  in  itself  that  the  fate  of  a  democracy  lies.  From 
its  own  members  must  emanate  all  its  laws,  its  ideals  of 
conduct,  of  whatever  nature.  It  must  have  confidence 
in  the  value  of  its  united  opinion;  and  its  prime  duty 
consists  in  such  a  free  and  liberal  exchange  of  ideas  that 
there  shall  be  a  united  opinion.  A  democracy  which  is 
not  self -expressive  and  self -determining  is  not  a  real 
democracy.  Anything  in  speech,  therefore,  which  pre- 
vents the  democratic  nation  from  realizing  itself  as  a 
self-determining  body  is  harmful.  Thus  the  national 
speech  of  a  democracy  cannot  be  sectional;  if  there  is' 
not  one  uniform  speech  acceptable  to  the  whole  nation, 
then  the  speech  of  one  region  must  have  equal  authority 
with  that  of  another.  The  speech  of  a  democracy  can- 
not be  a  class  speech ;  it  cannot  be  a  traditional  literary 
speech,  the  so-called  "  best  English  "  of  a  special  limited 
academic  or  literary  class.  Its  roots  must  go  deeper. 
They  must  strike  down  into  the  region  of  the  practical 
daily  life  of  the  citizens  whose  vote  and  whose  opinion 
make  the  country  what  it  is.  If  it  is  to  have  any  en- 
during vitality  it  must  rest  upon  the  basis  of  national 
custom  where  national  custom  is  made.  The  duty  of 
making  these  customs  sound  and  good  is  one  that  rests 


8  MODERN  ENGLISH 

on  all  alike.  The  welfare  of  the  speech  of  a  democracy 
can  no  more  be  left  in  the  hands  of  a  few  preservers 
or  regulators  than  its  political  government  can  be  left 
in  the  hands  of  a  few  self-appointed  directors  or  dic- 
tators. In  both  a  diffused  intelligence  is  the  prime 
requisite  to  a  healthy  national  life. 

6.  Speech  and  Education.  The  obstacles  that 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  realization  of  the  ideal  of  a 
democratic  speech  are  confessedly  numerous  and  great. 
It  is  difficult,  in  the  first  place,  to  determine  just  how 
much  value  should  be  ascribed  to  tradition.  Old  ways 
are  not  good  merely  because  they  are  old ;  and  of  course 
the  same  can  be  said  of  new  ways.  It  is  a  fair  con- 
servative assumption,  however,  that  what  has  served 
man's  purpose  in  the  past  will  continue  to  serve  it 
best  in  the  present,  until  changed  conditions  demand 
new  ways.  But  again  one  must  take  heed  not  to  be 
so  blinded  by  old  customs  as  not  to  perceive  when  the 
conditions  actually  are  changed.  In  the  second  place, 
democracy  works  from  the  bottom  up,  and  not  from 
the  top  down.  Consequently,  popular  education  when 
it  is  diffused  over  the  whole  body  of  society,  as  society 
is  at  present  constituted,  is  likely  to  be  a  somewhat 
thin  and  inadequate  kind  of  education.  It  thus  hap- 
pens that  there  are  people  who  rest  content  with  very 
imperfect  education,  who  take  the  dry  husks  of  the 
mere  rudiments  of  education  for  the  reality  itself.  We 
find  persons  who  think  that  the  secret  of  good  English 
consists  merely  in  expressing  themselves  in  a  certain 
prescribed  way,  in  using  a  certain  intonation  of  voice 
or  a  certain  quality  of  vowel  sound  when  they  speak, 
or  one  form  of  phrasing,  or  even  of  spelling,  rather 


INTRODUCTION  9 

than  another,  when  they  write.  They  fail  to  realize 
that  the  conventional  customs  of  speaking  and  writing, 
important  as  the  knowledge  of  them  is,  are  neverthe- 
less the  mere  preliminaries,  the  elementary  mechanics, 
of  a  good  use  of  language.  English  which  is  merely 
correct  cannot  claim  very  high  praise.  Going  a  little 
lower  in  the  scale  of  intelligence,  we  may  find  that  a 
man  who  has  come  from  generations  of  ancestors  who 
could  not  write,  is  likely  to  think  that  the  simple  ability 
to  write  is  the  pinnacle  of  education.  But  for  him  per- 
haps it  is;  and  all  that  democratic  education  can  offer 
to  any  large  body  of  people  in  different  stages  of  de- 
velopment is  the  opportunity  for  each  to  realize  what 
at  a  given  moment  is  the  highest  and  best  thing  for 
him  to  do.  The  general  level  cannot  be  raised  by  a 
single  act,  or  by  the  acts  of  a  few,  but  only  by  the 
sum  of  all  the  acts  of  the  people  who  make  up  the 
whole.  In  spite,  therefore,  of  the  low  ideals  of  certain 
members  of  the  body  politic,  it  must  always  remain 
the  hope  of  a  democracy  that  the  average  plane  of  its 
life  will  rise  higher  and  higher  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration. And  so  long  as  the  life  of  the  people  remains 
vigorous,  so  long  as  their  minds  and  their  wills  are 
energetic  and  stirring,  this  will  remain  a  well-founded 
hope. 

7.  The  Best  Tendency  in  Speech.  In  speech,  there- 
fore, the  ideal  attitude  of  mind  is  that  which  leads  the 
speaker  to  unite  himself  to  those  customs  and  tenden- 
cies which,  in  his  opinion,  make  for  the  welfare  of  the 
national  idiom  in  the  most  effective  manner.  If  speech 
arises,  as  we  have  said,  out  of  the  immediate  social  rela- 
tions of  man  with  man,  it  will  be  seen  that  therein  lies 


10  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  final  test  of  its  value.  It  will  be  seen,  also,  that 
those  tendencies  of  speech  with  which  a  speaker  or 
writer  wishes  to  unite  himself  are  merely  manifestations 
of  general  social  tendencies.  Shall  our  ideal  social 
tendency  be  one  that  makes  for  exclusiveness,  for  the 
development  of  limited  class  distinctions  ?  Or  shall  it 
be  a  broader  and  more  liberal  tendency,  one  that  is  dem- 
ocratic and  generously  inclusive  ?  In  speech  shall  we 
endeavor  to  cultivate  refined  and  more  or  less  arbitrary 
distinctions  which  shall  enable  us  to  make  a  strict  divi- 
sion between  conventional  and  literary  English,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  what  may  be  called  natural  and  seK- 
determining  English  on  the  other?  Is  the  best  English 
that  which  is  acquired  by  learning  and  following  an  ex- 
ternal rule,  or  is  it  the  English  which  is  acquired  by  fol- 
lowing social  custom,  the  best,  as  each  views  it,  and  PS 
each  is  brought  into  contact  with  it,  in  the  actual  proc- 
esses of  living,  speaking,  and  writing  ?  These  are  son?e 
of  the  questions  which  each  of  us  must  answer  for  him- 
self. Necessarily  every  speaker  and  every  writer  must 
follow  some  tendency  of  the  speech  of  the  community, 
whether  this  be  conscious  or  unconscious.  Every  one 
of  us  is  always  following,  at  the  same  time  that  he  is 
helping  to  make,  custom.  In  what  direction  shall  we 
throw  our  influence  ?  Before  we  can  answer  this  ques- 
tion we  must  have  some  knowledge  of  the  conflicting 
customs  and  tendencies  of  our  speech,  and  as  this  knowl- 
edge grows  in  breadth  and  certainty,  the  answer  to  the 
question  will  become,  according  to  our  sympathies,  cor- 
respondingly easy  and  unhesitating. 

8.  Literary  and  Spoken  Language.     In  all  study 
of  language  as  expression,  it  is  now  generally  conceded, 


INTRODUCTION  11 

by  those  who  have  given  much  thought  to  the  matter, 
that  the  spoken,  as  compared  with  the  written  or  literary 
language,  is  of  far  the  greater  importance.  It  is  mainly 
in  the  speech  of  men  and  women  as  they  come  into 
direct  social  relations  with  each  other  that  language  de- 
velops and  grows  in  a  natural,  untrammeled,  and  effec- 
tive way.  The  language  of  literature  is  merely  an 
approximate  transcription,  more  or  less  remote,  of  the 
language  of  speech.  It  is  from  the  latter  that  the  lan- 
guage of  literature  is  derived,  and  it  must  always  return 
to  its  source  to  renew  itself  when,  as  it  constantly  tends 
to  do,  it  becomes  attenuated  and  outworn.  This  being 
granted,  it  readily  follows  that  it  is  speech  which  we 
should  study,  not  only  for  effectiveness  in  conversation, 
bat  also  for  effectiveness  in  literature.  The  popular 
opinion  is  not  usually  in  accord  with  this  statement.  It 
is  often  believed  that  the  language  of  literature  is  some- 
thing different  from  and  better  than  the  language  of 
speech.  This  latter,  being  the  common  possession  of  all, 
ia  looked  down  upon  as  something  ignoble,  or  at  least 
not  admirable.  Because  it  is  familiar,  it  is  regarded  as 
contemptible.  It  is  supposed  that  the  ability  to  use  the 
English  of  literature  is  a  special  and  acquired  accom- 
plishment, and  that  one  learns  the  language  of  literature 
as  one  learns  a  new  art,  like  playing  the  piano  or  paint- 
ing. Being  a  special  and  higher  accomplishment,  the 
language  of  literature  is  thus  often  regarded  as  furnish- 
ing the  model  for  the  language  of  speech,  and  the  theory 
is  held  that  the  latter  should  be  made  to  conform  as 
fully  as  possible  to  the  former.  One  need  only  "  talk 
like  a  book  "  to  realize  the  absurdity  of  such  a  belief. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  no  credit  to  the  language  of  lit- 


12  MODERN  ENGLISH 

erature  to  read  like  a  book.  Literary  language  which  \a 
bookish  we  do  not  regard  as  admirable ;  on  the  con- 
trary, when  we  want  to  praise  an  author's  style,  we 
rather  say  that  it  is  true,  natural,  real.  The  fact  is  that 
literature  endeavors  merely  to  transcribe  life,  to  give  in 
the  permanent  form  of  words  and  sentences  the  passing 
experiences,  thoughts,  and  emotions  of  men.  According 
as  it  does  this  the  more  directly  and  truly,  the  greater 
literature  it  is.  There  is  no  need  to  prove  that  language 
is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  expressions  of  human 
life.  It  is  as  speaking  beings  that  men  think  of  them- 
selves. The  writer,  therefore,  who  wishes  to  transcribe 
human  life,  must  transcribe  it  in  the  forms  of  speech  in 
which  it  finds  its  most  immediate  expression.  His  task 
is  parallel  to  that  of  the  artist.  When  a  portrait  painter 
wishes  to  paint  a  portrait,  he  must  study  the  features 

,w<~  of  the  human  face  and  the  lines  of  the  human  figure ; 
when  a  landscape  painter  wishes  to  transfer  to  canvas 
his  impressions  of  sea  or  land,  he  must  go  into  the  open 

^**T  *  and  study  clouds,  trees,  and  atmosphere.  Both  are  said 
to  follow  nature,  because  it  is  their  impressions  of  the 
reality  in  nature  which  they  endeavor  to  record.  In  the 
same  way  the  literary  artist  must  follow  nature,  not  only 
by  studying  the  inner  moods  and  actuating  motives  of 
men,  but  also  the  ways  in  which  these  moods  and  mo- 
tives find  their  most  natural  and  effective  expression.  It 
is  true,  of  course,  that  literary  language  has  customs  and 
conventions,  for  example,  meter  in  poetry,  which  are 
peculiar  to  itself.  In  the  same  way  painting  has  cer- 
tain devices,  tricks  of  method,  which  in  themselves  are 
untrue  to  nature,  but  which  are  used  because  to  the 
beholder  they  produce  or  heighten  the  effects  of  nature, 


INTRODUCTION  13 

The  painter's  concern  is  to  cause  the  illusion  of  nature, 
since  he  cannot  actually  create  the  counterpart  to  na- 
ture.    So  also  the  literary  artist  attempts  to  produce 
the  illusion  of  reality  in  language.     All  that  is  appro- 
priate to   speech   is   consequently   not   necessarily  ap- 
propriate to  all  forms  of  literature,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  some  things  are  appropriate  to  certain  kinds  of 
literature  which  are  not  appropriate   to  speech.      But 
whenever  the  customs  and  conventions  of  literature  be- 
come so  peculiar  to  it  that  they  are  purely  literary,  or 
academic,  as  we  say,  when  they  produce  the  effect  of 
being  untrue  to,  or  remote  from,  nature,  then  they  are 
appropriate  neither  to  the  literary  nor  to  any  other  lan- 
guage.    It  is  to  the  natural,  spoken  language  that  we 
make  our  final  appeal.     And  it  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  just  those  periods  of  English  literature  have  been 
greatest  in  which  the  language  of  literature  stood  near- 
est to  the  language  of  speech.    Chaucer's  literary  style 
became  more  and  more  natural  as  he  grew  older,  until  in 
the  Canterbury  Tales,  his  latest  work,  we  almost  think 
we  hear  his  characters  speak.     The  language  of  Shak- 
spere  is  the  language  of  the  drama,  and  whatever  con- 
ventions the  language  of  the  drama  may  have,  its  prime 
requisite  is  that  it  shall  be  true  to  life.     The  poets  of 
a  third  great  period  of  English  literature,  beginning  with 
Wordsworth  and  Coleridge,  made  the  imitation  of  the 
simple  speech  of  daily  life  their  first  principle.     Their 
art  on  the  side  of  language  consists  largely  in  a  return 
to  nature  as  exemplified  in  speech.     What  is  true  of 
English,  is  true  of  literature  generally.      Students  of 
Greek  tell  us  that  much  of  the  charm  of  Greek  litera- 
ture consists  in  the  intimate  dependence  of  the  language 


14  MODERN   ENGLISH 

of  literature  upon  the  language  of  speech  ;  Greek  liter- 
ary style  is  not  a  special  caste  language  for  literary  pur- 
poses, but  rather  an  extension  of  the  spoken  language  to 
written  uses.  Moli^re,  the  only  Frenchman  worthy  to 
rank  as  the  fellow  of  Shakspere,  owes  much  of  his 
power  to  the  naturalness  of  his  style.  Hating  as  he  did 
hypocrisy  and  affectation  in  every  form,  we  should  ex- 
pect to  find  him  natural  and  real  in  his  writing.  In 
short  it  is  a  false  standard  of  value  to  assume  that  the 
test  of  highest  excellence  is  to  be  found  only  in  printed 
and  written  words.  These  are  merely  makeshifts  and 
substitutes  for  the  reality.  They  serve,  to  be  sure,  a 
very  important  purpose.  For  one  thing,  they  preserve 
what  otherwise  might  become  lost  if  intrusted  only  to 
oral  transmission.  They  perform  a  tremendous  service 
to  humanity  also  by  extending  the  bounds  of  individual 
experience.  In  a  library  of  books  we  can  commune  at 
will  with  the  spirits  of  all  ages  and  all  places.  Indeed 
the  ability  to  write  is  so  highly  regarded  by  mankind 
that  perhaps  no  other  kind  of  fame  is  so  generally  and 
so  eagerly  desired  as  literary  fame.  Yet  this  glory 
should  not  blind  one  to  the  fact  that  literature  is  not 
self -producing,  but  grows  out  of  nature.  The  aspirant 
for  literary  fame  must  not  only  know  letters,  above  all 
he  must  know  life.  If  he  wishes  to  write  for  his  age, 
he  must  know  how  the  men  of  his  age  speak.  He  must 
not  expend  all  his  energy  and  admiration  upon  books, 
but  must  turn  to  that  form  of  the  language  which,  above 
the  language  of  books,  is  the  most  wonderful,  the  most 
dignified,  and  the  most  worthy  of  respect,  the  flexible, 
subtle  speech  of  men  in  the  infinite  relations  of  human 
life. 


n 

THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE 

1.  Speech  and  Race.     The  English  language  is  one 
of  the  most  widely  distributed  languages  of  the  modern 
world.     Centered  originally  in   the   little   kingdom  of 
England,  the  speech  has  spread  to  all  the  four  corners 
of  the  globe.     It  has  become  the  speech  of  two  of  the 
most  powerful   nations  of   modern  times,  and  is  now 
the  speech  of  the  most  numerous  civilized  people  of 
the  world.     In  the  course  of  its  history,  it  has  imposed 
itself  upon  peoples  originally  speaking  many  different 
languages  and  originally  of  very  diverse  racial  origins ; 
and  altho  each  new  body  thus  incorporated  has  affected 
the  whole,  the  stock  of  the  language  has  remained  es- 
sentially the  same  to  the  present  day.     It  shall  be  our 
first  task  to  take  a  survey  of  the  history  of  the  English 
language  from  this  ethnological  or  racial  point  of  view. 

2.  Celtic  Britain.     In  the  first  century  before  Christ, 
when  the   island   of   Great   Britain  first  became   well 
known  to  the  Romans,  who  were  then  the  most  power- 
ful  as   well   as   the  most   highly  civilized   nation  of 
Europe,  it  was  occupied  by  a  race  of  Celtic  people, 
speaking  a  Celtic  language.     This  race  had  been  pre- 
ceded in  Britain  by  various  different,  prehistoric  races 
concerning  which  little  is  known;  it  was  one  of  these 
prehistoric    races,    however,    which    reared   the    great 
monoliths   at    Stonehenge   on    Salisbury    Plain.      The 


16  MODERN  ENGLISH 

Celtic  inhabitants  of  the  island  called  themselves  Brit- 
ons, and  from  this  name  of  the  people  the  country  was 
called  Britannia  by  the  Romans,  whence  is  derived  our 
modern  Britain.  The  Celts  of  Britain  were  merely  a 
branch  of  a  greater  Celtic  people  which  then  dwelt  in 
Gaul  and  in  Spain,  the  Celts  of  Gaul  being  the  prede- 
cessors of  the  Franks,  a  Teutonic  people  from  whom 
the  country  derived  its  modern  name  of  France.  On 
the  Continent  the  Celts  have  been  almost  completely 
absorbed  by  the  Roman  and  Teutonic  conquerors  of 
their  countries.  But  in  England  to  this  day  they  have 
maintained  a  more  or  less  separate  existence,  and  their 
speech  still  survives  in  the  Gaelic  of  the  Highlands  of 
Scotland,  the  Welsh  of  Wales,  and  also  in  the  Irish  of 
Ireland.  Until  comparatively  recent  times  a  Celtic 
speech  was  also  spoken  in  Cornwall. 

3.  The  Roman  Invasions.  The  first  military  inva- 
sion which  the  Romans,  the  world  conquerors,  made 
against  the  Celts  of  Britain,  was  in  the  years  55  and 
54  B.  C.,  under  the  leadership  of  Julius  Csesar.  This 
was  more  in  the  nature  of  an  excursion  from  Gaul, 
however,  where  Caesar  was  then  campaigning,1  than 
a  settled  attempt  to  conquer  the  country.  The  serious 
conquest  of  Britain  was  not  undertaken  until  about  a 
century  later,  A.  D.  42,  under  the  Emperor  Claudius ; 
and  about  the  year  A.  D.  80  the  country  was  organized 
as  a  Roman  province,  under  the  command  of  the  Roman 
general  Agricola.  The  portions  of  the  country  occupied 
by  the  Romans  were  chiefly  those  central,  southern, 
and  eastern  parts  which  later  became  the  kingdom  of 
England.  The  mountainous  regions  of  Wales  in  the 

1  See  Gallic  War,  Books  IV  and  V. 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  IT 

West  and  of  Scotland  in  the  North  were  sought  out  as 
a  place  of  refuge  by  the  Celts  who  had  been  driven  out 
of  the  more  fertile  regions  of  the  lowlands.  In  these 
fastnesses  they  maintained  an  independent  and  hostile 
existence.  As  a  protection  against  Celtic  invasions  from 
the  north  the  Emperor  Hadrian  (A.  D.  120)  built  a  wall, 
parts  of  which  are  still  standing,  between  the  Firth  of 
Solway  and  the  mouth  of  the  river  Tyne.  A  second  wall 
was  later  built  by  Antoninus  Pius,  extending  from  the 
Firth  of  Clyde  to  the  Firth  of  Forth ;  and  still  later  these 
walls  were  further  extended  by  the  Emperor  Severus, 
who  came  to  Britain  in  the  year  208.  In  the  protected 
regions  the  Roman  civilization  in  Britain  was  prosperous 
and  highly  developed.  The  ground  was  cultivated,  and 
sheep  and  cattle  were  raised.  The  mines  of  Cornwall 
and  of  Northumberland  were  worked  and  an  extensive 
commerce  with  the  Continent  was  carried  on.  The  Ro- 
mans built  houses,  temples,  theaters,  altars,  and  baths 
after  the  style  of  the  buildings  of  their  home  country, 
and  ruins  and  relics  of  these  houses  that  have  been  pre- 
served to  modern  times  show  that  some  of  them  must 
have  been  very  luxurious.  They  built  also  highways 
(as  for  example  Watling  Street,  extending  the  whole 
breadth  of  England  from  Canterbury  to  Chester),  some 
parts  of  which  are  in  use  to  this  day.  Our  word  u  street," 
derived  from  Latin  strata,  in  the  phrase  strata  via, "  paved 
way,"  was  borrowed  from  the  Roman  soldiers,  both  OD 
the  Continent  and  in  Britain.  These  highways  were 
built,  in  accordance  with  the  usual  policy  of  the  Romans, 
as  military  roads  to  facilitate  the  passage  of  troops  from 
one  section  of  the  country  to  another.  Walled  cities 
were  also  established  at  various  advantageous  points  in 


18  MODERN  ENGLISH 

Britain,  and  many  of  these  have  likewise  lasted  to 
modern  times,  some  of  them  still  preserving  parts  of  the 
old  Roman  defenses.  They  were  called  castra,  and  this 
word,  in  its  modified  forms,  appears  in  the  names  Ches- 
ter, Winchester,  Doncaster,  Gloucester,  Worcester,  Exeter 
(in  Anglo-Saxon  times  known  as  Exanceaster),  and  in 
many  other  names  of  towns  and  places.  The  language 
which  was  spoken  by  the  Romans  in  Britain  was  the 
Latin  language  in  a  popular  or  colloquial  form,  being  the 
ordinary  language  of  the  soldiers  and  merchants  who 
constituted  the  larger  part  of  the  population.  It  was 
the  same  language  as  that  spoken  in  Gaul  by  the  Roman 
conquerors  of  that  country,  and  if  the  Romans  in  Eng- 
land had  continued  in  uninterrupted  residence,  as  they 
did  in  Gaul,  it  is  quite  probable  that  the  language  of 
Great  Britain  to-day  would  be  a  Romance  speech  instead 
of  English. 

The  Roman  occupation  of  Britain,  however,  came  to  a 
sudden  end.  In  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  A.  D.,  the 
pressure  of  the  northern  tribes  upon  Italy  and  Rome  be- 
gan to  make  itself  felt,  and  Rome  was  compelled  to 
strengthen  her  home  defenses.  To  do  this  it  was  neces- 
sary to  call  in  certain  of  the  legions  that  were  stationed 
in  the  provinces,  and  naturally  the  most  distant  were  the 
first  thus  to  be  given  up.  In  the  year  407  the  greater 
part  of  the  Roman  soldiery  left  Britain ;  in  the  year  410 
the  last  Roman  legion  was  withdrawn,  and  the  Emperor 
Honorius  sent  a  letter  to  the  people  of  Britain  in  which 
he  told  them  to  take  charge  of  their  own  defense. 
Since  the  Roman  civilization  in  Britain  had  been  al- 
together military  in  character,  the  withdrawal  of  the 
legions  immediately  prepared  the  way  for  the  breaking 


THE   ENGLISH   PEOPLE  19 

down  of  the  whole  Roman  system  of  government  and 
for  the  next  important  and  dramatic  episode  in  the 
history  of  the  island,  the  coming  of  the  English. 

4.  The  Anglo-Saxon  Conquest.  Besides  their  her- 
editary enemies,  the  Celts  of  the  mountainous  regions  of 
Wales  and  Scotland,  the  Romans  in  Britain  had  had 
another  foe  to  contend  with.  These  were  certain  Ger- 
manic Saxon  tribes  who  were  in  the  habit  of  crossing 
over  from  north  Germany  and  ravaging  the  eastern  coast 
of  Britain,  known  as  the  Saxon  Shore  because  it  was  ex- 
posed to  the  attacks  of  the  Saxons.  While  the  Roman 
soldiers  were  still  stationed  in  Britain  these  predatory 
bands  of  warriors  could  be  easily  held  in  check.  With 
the  departure  of  the  legions,  however,  the  state  of  affairs 
was  altered.  The  Celts  of  the  highlands,  finding  that 
the  defenses  of  the  country  had  been  weakened  by  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Roman  soldiery,  swarmed  down  from 
their  rocky  fastnesses,  and  immediately  began  the  tan'k 
of  regaining  their  ancestral  kingdoms.  It  is  probable 
that  the  Roman  citizens  left  behind  in  the  towns  after  the 
departure  of  the  legions  were  an  unwarlike  population. 
The  defense  of  the  country  had  so  long  been  left  in  the 
hands  of  a  professional  military  class  that  when  this 
class  was  removed  there  were  none  left  trained  in  the 
arts  of  war  to  take  its  place.  At  any  rate  the  inhabit- 
ants of  the  Roman  towns  and  the  dwellers  in  the  Roman 
villas  were  no  match  for  the  rude  and  warlike  Celts. 
They  were  thus  placed  between  two  fires,  the  Celts  on 
the  one  side  and  the  marauding  Germanic  tribes  on  the 
other.  Thinking  to  seize  the  more  favorable  horn  of  the 
dilemma,  they  turned  to  the  Germanic  invaders  and 
asked  them  to  come  over  and  help  them  subdue  tbetr 


20  MODERN  ENGLISH 

enemies.  In  response  to  this  invitation,  extended  by 
Vortigern,  king  of  the  Roman  Britons,  tradition  tells  us 
that  two  Saxon  chiefs,  Hengest  and  Horsa,  with  their 
followers,  landed  on  the  island  of  Thanet,  on  the  coast  of 
Kent,  in  the  year  449.  True  to  their  compact  they  first 
aided  the  Roman  Britons  to  drive  back  the  Celts,  but 
the  story  goes  that,  observing  the  weakness  of  their  allies 
and  the  richness  of  the  land,  they  sent  word  back  to 
their  countrymen  at  home  that  they  should  come  over 
and  assist  them,  that  they  might  together  possess  the 
land.  The  warriors  who  came  in  response  to  this  request 
were  of  three  tribes  of  north  Germans,  the  Angles, 
who  lived  in  the  region  of  modern  Holstein,  the  Jutes, 
who  lived  in  the  region  of  modern  Jutland,  and  the 
Saxons,  who  lived  in  the  region  of  modern  Schleswig. 
The  story  of  the  conflict  between  these  Teutonic  tribes 
and  the  Roman  Britons,  with  whom  the  Celts  now  be- 
came united  against  the  common  foe,  has  been  but  im- 
perfectly reported  by  history.  We  know  that  the 
struggle  was  stubborn,  but  it  is  plain  that  the  Britons 
were  unable  to  stand  out  against  their  barbarous  foe- 
men.  Battle  after  battle  was  fought,  but  always  with 
the  result  that  the  Britons  were  driven  further  inland 
and  up  into  the  mountainous  regions  to  which  the  Ro- 
mans several  centuries  before  had  driven  the  original 
Celts.  Later  tradition  has  developed  in  great  detail  the 
story  of  King  Arthur,  the  heroic  leader  of  the  Britons, 
and  of  his  twelve  great  battles  against  the  Teutonic 
heathen.  But  there  are  no  authentic  records  of  these 
twelve  battles,  or  of  King  Arthur,  that  would  enable  us 
to  build  up  a  connected  story  of  the  events.  All  we 
know  is  that  out  of  the  welter  and  confusion  of  these 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  21 

wars,  a  new  Teutonic  England,  consisting  at  first  of  a 
number  of  separate  kingdoms,  arose  from  the  ruins  of 
the  old  Celtic  and  Roman  Britain.  The  first  Anglo- 
Saxon  kingdom  to  be  founded  was  that  of  Kent.  In  519 
occurs  the  first  mention  of  a  West  Saxon  kingdom,  and 
547  is  the  date  of  the  first  Northumbrian  king.  By 
the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  therefore,  we  may 
say  that  the  Saxon  conquest  of  Britain  was  complete. 
Tliis  does  not  mean  that  the  whole  island  was  under 
Saxon  control,  for  Wales  and  Scotland  were  still  Celtic, 
as  they  had  been  all  through  the  period  of  Roman  occu- 
pation. From  their  retreats  in  the  mountains  the  Celts 
continued  to  make  frequent  forays  into  the  Saxon 
country,  and  the  story  of  the  complete  reduction  of 
Celtic  Britain  would  carry  us  far  down  into  modern 
times. 

The  three  tribes  who  had  thus  become  masters  of  the 
fairest  part  of  the  island  of  Britain,  settled  each  in  a 
separate  region.  The  Jutes,  who  were  the  smallest  of 
the  three  tribes,  settled  in  Kent  and  the  Isk^ofJWight. 
The  Angles  settled  the  regions  north  of  the  Thaines  to 
the  Firth  of  Forth,  exclusive  of  the  region  immediately 
north  of  the  mouth  of  the  Thames.  The  two  main 
kingdoms  of  the  Angles  were  No^hmnbria 


As  the  most  numerous  and  best  organized  of  the  tribes 
and  the  one  in  which  a  literature  was  first  developed, 
the  Angles  in  time  gave  the  name  to  the  whole  country, 
Englaland,  u  land  of  the  Angles,"  and  to  the  speech, 
Englisc,  "English,"  or  "the  English  speech."  The 
Saxons  settled  the  regions  south  of  the  Thames,  ex- 
cepting those  parts  occupied  by  the  Jutes,  and'"  the  re- 
gion just  north  of  the  mouth  of  that  river.  The  chief 


22  MODERN   ENGLISH 

Saxon  kingdoms  were  Wessexj  the  kingdom  of  the  West 
Saxons ;  Essex,  the  kingdom  of  the  East  Saxons ;  Sussex, 
the  kingdom  of  the  South  Saxons;  and  Middlesex,  the 
kingdom  of  the  Middle  Saxons.  For  a  long  time  these 
various  Anglian,  Jutish,  and  Saxon  kingdoms  main- 
tained separate  existences.  They  were  first  united  into 
a  loose  sort  of  confederation  by  Egbert,  who  came  to  the 
throne  of  Wessex  in  the  year  802,  but  it  was  not. until 
the  beginning  of  the  tenth  century  that  the  union  became 
complete  and  lasting.  This  united  people,  as  has  been 
stated,  called  itself  the  English  people.  They  are  also 
known  by  the  name  Anglo-Saxons,  a  composite  name 
made  up  of  the  two  most  important  tribes  that  united  to 
form  the  nation ;  this  name,  however,  is  an  invention  of 
scholars  and  historians  of  later  times,  and  altho  it  is 
a  convenient  descriptive  name,  it  should  be  remembered 
that  the  Anglo-Saxons  in  their  own  period  called  them- 
selves English  and  their  country  England.1  To  bring 
out  the  fact  of  the  direct  sequence  of  the  later  periods  of 
English  history  after  the  earlier,  it  is  often  convenient 
to  speak  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  as  the  Old  English 
period,  and  of  the  language  of  the  time  as  Old  English. 
This  terminology  thus  runs  parallel  to  the  succeeding 
Middle  English  and  Modern  English  periods. 

1  The  words  England,  English  are  pronounced  as  though  they  were 
written  Ingland,  Inglish.  As  a  matter  of  fact  in  earlier  periods  they  were 
often  so  written,  the  pronunciation  being  then  in  accord  with  the  spelling. 
In  Anglo-Saxon  the  words  were  written  Englaland,  Englisc,  and  were  pro- 
nounced as  written.  But  the  vowel  e  before  ng  changes  regularly  in 
Middle  English  to  t,  Anglo-Saxon  strenge,  for  example,  becoming  "  string." 
Thus  England,  English  became  Ingland,  Inglish  and  were  so  written  for  a 
time.  Later  this  phonetic  spelling  was  "  reformed  "  to  agree  with  the 
original  Anglo-Saxon  spelling,  Eng-,  altho  the  pronunciation  has  re- 
mained Ing.  These  two  words  are  the  only  ones  in  English  in  which 
the  combination  eng  is  pronounced  ing. 


THE  ENGLISH   PEOPLE  23 

5.  The   Civilization   of   the  Anglo-Saxons.      At 

the  time  of  their  arrival  in  England  the  Anglo-Saxons 
1  were  a  heathen  people,  worshipping  the  gods  Thor  and 
Woden,  and  the  many  other  divinities  of  the  Teutonic 
mythology  and  religion.  They  were  seamen  and  war- 
riors, and  gained  a  large  part  of  their  livelihood,  like  the 
Danes  of  a  later  period,  by  making  plundering  expedi- 
tions upon  the  coasts  of  neighboring  countries.  With 
their  settlement  in  England,  however,  a  great  change 
came  over  this  wild  and  barbarous  people.  Having  now 
a  rich  and  fertile  land  in  their  possession,  they  were  no 
longer  impelled  to  live  by  robbery  and  violence,  but 
settled  down  to  the  peaceful  occupations  of  farming  and 
raising  sheep  and  cattle.  They  soon  became  rich,  and 
with  this  increase  in  wealth  naturally  came  a  greater 
development  of  the  arts  and  of  the  more  humane  aspects 
of  life.  The  greatest  civilizing  influence,  however,  to 
which  they  were  subjected  was  that  of  Christianity^iEL- 
troduced  to  them  by  the  Roman  missionary  Augustine, 
and  his  assistants,  in  the  year  597.  The  response  to 
Augustine's  preaching  was  immediate  and  enthusiastic, 
and  in  a  short  time  the  whole  of  Anglo-Saxon  England 
became  Christian.  Gradually,  also,  the  newcomers 
worked  out  a  political  system,  and  from  being  a  discon- 
nected group  of  tribal  kingdoms  or  states,  they  became, 
in  the  time  of  Alfred  and  his  successors,  a  nation  in  the 
true  sense  of  the  word,  with  one  king  and  a  strongly 
centralized  government  to  hold  them  together.  Their 
speech  was,  of  course,  Germanic,  and  it  was  closely  related 
to  that  spoken  in  Germany  and  other  parts  of  northern 
Europe  (see  pp.  46-50).  In  course  of  time  this  speech  also 
became  the  vehicle  for  literary  expression,  both  in  verse 


24  MODERN   ENGLISH 

and  in  prose.  As  is  almost  always  true  of  the  begin- 
nings of  a  national  literature,  Old  English  poetry  pre- 
ceded prose.  As  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  seventh 
century  Old  English  poetry  was  probably  composed  and 
written  down  in  England,  altho  all  the  manuscripts  which 
have  been  preserved  to  modern  times  are  copies  which 
date  from  a  period  considerably  later.  Most  of  this 
poetry  is  highly  traditional  in  character ;  for  altho  the 
Anglo-Saxons  by  this  time  had  generally  turned  to 
quiet  agricultural  and  pastoral  pursuits,  their  poetry 
nevertheless  is  very  warlike  in  tone;  and  altho  they 
had  long  since  ceased  to  follow  the  water  extensively, 
the  sea,  its  dangers  and  its  attractions,  is  one  of  their  most 
frequent  poetic  themes.  This  is  true  not  only  of  their 
native  heroic  poetry,  as  for  example  the  great  epic  poem 
Beowulf,  which  is  the  most  important  literary  monument 
of  the  Old  English  period  that  has  come  down  to  us,  but 
also  of  the  later  poetry  of  the  school  of  Caedmon,  written 
about  the  middle  of  the  seyenth  century,  and  of  the 
school  of  Cynewulf,  written  about  the  middle  of  the 
eighth  century,  which  is  strongly  under  Christian  influ- 
ence and  the  subject  matter  of  which  is  Christian  story 
and  legend.  This  poetry  also  is  cast  in  the  old  epic 
warlike  mould  of  the  earlier  native  verse.  The  expla- 
nation of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  all  Old  Eng- 
lish poetry  is  popular  in  its  origins  —  that  is,  it  goes 
back  to  the  early  warlike  periods  of  the  race  when  poetry 
was  handed  down  by  oral  tradition  from  minstrel  to 
minstrel.  And  as  poetry  is  always  very  conservative, 
it  is  natural  that  when  the  period  of  written  literature 
began  the  old  poetic  traditions  and  conventions  should 
be  preserved  by  the  side  of  much  that  was  new.  The 


*^|  Wcomon  ^qujftr  ottttojt})  ybcpiun 


6  an  b|ttrtaf.  n>d  yc  <qt  a>c^<m 
don  ftjp 


of  ^bqtnutn 


V]i)rittne»  ^cfi 


THE  OLD  ENGLISH  CHRONICLE 

From  the  Bodleian  manuscript,  Laud  636. 

(For  description,  see  Appendix.) 


26  MODERN   ENGLISH 

great  body  of  Old  English  poetry  is  preserved  in  three 
volumes,  or  codexes,  of  miscellaneous  content,  Manu- 
script Junius  XI  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford  ; 
the  Vercelli  Book,  found  in  the  year  1822  in  an  out-of- 
the-way  library  at  Vercelli,  Italy,  where  it  is  still  pre- 
served ;  and  the  Exeter  Book,  the  property  of  Exeter 
Cathedral  in  England. 

Old  English  prose,  on  the  other  hand,  the  body  of 
which  was  not  written  until  the  ninth^century  and 
later,  is  completely  under  the  dominance  of  the  new 
order  of  thought.  There  is  nothing  primitive  and  tra- 
ditional about  the  prose,  but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  all 
distinctly  Christian  in  tone  and,  for  its  period,  very 
modern.  It  consists  mainly  of  historical,  philosophical, 
and  religious  or  exegetical  writings,  and  centers  chiefly 
about  the  name  of  Alfred,  who  died  in  901,  and  of  ^Elf- 
ric,  who  died  near  the  close  of  the  Old  English  period 
about  the  year  1020.  One  of  the  most  important  prose 
documents  is  the  Old  ^English  Chronicle*  the  earliest 
attempt  at  the  consecutive  writing  of  history  in  the 
English  tongue.  It  was  probably  compiled  under  the 
direction  of  King  Alfred  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth 
century,  but  it  was  continued  in  various  forms  by  later 
hands,  the  Laud  version,  of  which  the  opening  is  here 
reproduced,  coming  down  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century. 

On  the  whole  one  must  say  that  between  the  arrival 
of  Hengest  and  Horsa  in  449  and  the  close  of  the  Old 
English  period  with  the  coming  of  William  the  Con- 
queror in  1066,  the  Anglo-Saxons  had  developed  a 
relatively  high  civilization.  They  were  well  governed, 
they  had  an  enlightened  religion,  they  cultivated  learn- 


THE   ENGLISH  PEOPLE  27 

ing  and  letters.  In  some  of  the  arts,  for  example  the 
making  of  enameled  jewelry,  they  were  famous,  and 
the  embroidery  of  ecclesiastical  garments  done  by  the 
Anglo-Saxon  women  had  even  a  Continental  reputation. 
The  people  lived  in  comfort  and  often  in  luxury,  some 
of  the  satires  of  the  times  showing  that  then,  as  always, 
extravagance  in  dress  and  the  table  accompanied  pros- 
perity. One  must  not  think,  therefore,  of  the  Old 
English  period  as  barbarous  and  uncivilized.  It  was 
indeed  the  period  of  the  beginnings  of  English  speech 
and  English  literature,  but  even  in  their  beginnings 
our  language  and  literature  afford  much  that  may  and 
should  be  studied,  not  only  for  its  historical  interest, 
but  also  for  its  intrinsic  wisdom  and  beauty. 

6.  The  Danish  Invasions  and  the  Danish  Con-^o* 
quest.  In  the  midst  of  their  peaceful  development, 
however,  the  Anglo-Saxons  were  called  upon  to  meet  a 
great  danger.  History  repeated  itself ;  for  just  as  the 
weakened  Britons  several  centuries  before  had  yielded  to 
the  attacks  of  the  Jutes,  Angles,  and  Saxons,  so  now 
these  latter,  also  weakened  by  the  refining  influences  of 
civilization  and  by  the  gradual  decay  of  their  warlike 
habits,  were  compelled  to  meet  the  advances  of  certain 
kinsmen  of  theirs  from  the  Continent,  the  Danes.  The 
method  of  the  Danish  invasions  was  practically  the  same 
as  that  of  the  original  Anglo-Saxon  invasion.  They  first 
came  on  marauding  expeditions,  returning  each  time  to 
their  own  country.  About  the  year  850,  however,  they 
began  a  campaign  of  conquest  and  settlement,  and,  in  a 
short  time,  they  gained  control  of  all  England  except  the 
little  kingdom  of  Wessex,  south  of  the  Thames,  which 
was  held  and  defended  by  the  heroic  Alfred.  After 


28  MODERN   ENGLISH 

Alfred's  death  in  901  his  son  and  successor  Edward,  and 
after  Edward,  Alfred's  grandson  ^Ethelstan,  succeeded 
in  winning  back  the  greater  part  of  England  from  the 
Danes.  But  this  success  was  only  temporary,  for,  in 
the  reign  of  ^Ethelred  the  Unready  (978-1016),  the 
Danes  and  Northmen  came  over  to  England  in  ever- 
increasing  numbers  and  gained  possession  of  the  en- 
tire land. 

In  the  year  1017  Cnut  became  king  of  England, 
find  a  Danish  king  occupied  both  the  English  and 
Danish  throne  at  the  same  time.  Cnut  was  succeeded  by 
his  son  Hardacnut  (1039-1042),  and  Hardacnut  was 
succeeded  by  Edward  the  Confessor  (1042-1066},jn 
whose  long  and  peaceful  reign  the  Dane  and  Anglo-Saxon 
in  England  became  fused  into  one  people.  Closely 
related  in  blood  and  speaking  languages  which  had  a 
great  deal  in  common,  the  two  peoples,  the  conquered 
and  the  conquerors,  readily  united.  With  that  remark- 
able vitality  which  has  always  characterized  it,  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  language  succeeded  in  crowding  out  the  Danish, 
and  tho  modified  in  some  respects  by  the  influences 
to  which  they  had  been  subjected,  it  was  an  English 
language  and  an  English  people  that  arose  again  out 
of  the  Danish  Conquest. 

7.  The  Norman  Conquest.  After  the  coming  of 
the  Anglo-Saxons  to  Britain  in  the  fifth  century,  un- 
doubtedly the  event  most  far-reaching  in  its  later  effect 
upon  the  speech  and  the  institutions  of  the  people  who 
inhabited  the  island  was  the  Norman  Conquest  under 
William  the  Conqueror  in  1066.  The  Danish  Conquest 
had  not  been  without  its  effect;  but  owing  to  the  close 
relationship  in  blood  and  speech  that  existed  between  the 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  29 

Anglo-Saxons  and  the  Danes,  and  the  consequent  ease 
with  which  they  fused  into  one  people,  the  Danish 
addition  to  the  English  population  may  be  regarded 
rather  as  strengthening  the  original  stock  than  changing 
it  or  turning  it  in  new  directions.  The  Norman  Con- 
quest, however,  was  entirely  different;  for  it  not  only 
succeeded  after  a  time  in  imposing  a  new  social  and 
political  system  upon  the  English  people,  but  even  in 
putting  the  English  language  in  the  second  place  tempo- 
rarily  and  in  profoundly  affecting  it  permanently.  The 
Normans  who  came  to  England  in  the  train  of  William 
spoke  Norman  French,  a  dialect  of  the  French  language 
spoken  in  the  province  of  Normandy.  By  birth  and 
descent,  however,  they  were  not  primarily  Franks,  but 
were  nearly  related  to  those  Teutonic  Danish  and  Scan- 
dinavian tribes  who,  in  the  reign  of  ^Ethelred,  had  be- 
come masters  of  England.  The  name  Norman  is  merely 
a  contraction  of  Northman,  and  (the  Normans  were  Scan-  ^)  u 
dinavian  seafarers  who  had  settled  in  northern  France 
just  as,  and  at  the  same  time  that,  the  Danes  and  North- 
men were  settling  in  England.  Like  their  kinsmen  in 
England,  the  Northmen  in  France  gave  up  their  native 
speech,  and  as  the  former  had  accepted  English,  so 
they  accepted  French.  We  have,  therefore,  the  curious 
spectacle  of  a  people  of  the  same  blood  producing  all  •, 
the  effect  of  a  foreign  race  upon  their  kinsmen,  merely  I 
because  of  a  difference  in  language  —  a  striking  illustra- 
tion of  the  fact  that  speech  is  thicker  than  blood.  But  it 
should  be  remembered  that  with  the  French  language 
the  Normans  had  imbibed  all  the  ideas  and  ways  of 
thinking  of  the  French,  and  consequently  had  become 
as  much  French  as  the  Franks  themselves. 


30  MODERN  ENGLISH 

The  first  effect  of  the  Conquest  upon  England  was 
to  place  Normans  in  the  positions  of  authority  in  the 
country,  and  thus  to  make  French  the  language  of  the 
court  and  the  ruling  classes.  But  there  is  no  indication 
that  William  or  any  of  his  successors  attempted  to 
coerce  the  native  English-speaking  population  into  using 
French,  and  at  first  the  growth  of  the  Norman  French 
influence  upon  English  was  very  slow.  There  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  if  the  relations  between  France  and 
England  had  ceased  with  the  Conquest,  it  would  have 
been  but  a  short  time  before  the  Norman  French  were  as 
completely  fused  with  the  English  as  the  Danes  had  be- 
come. But  the  Norman  French  influence  upon  Eng- 
lish, altho  it  was  at  first  slow,  was  increasing.  French 
was  not  forced  upon  the  English  by  any  edict  of  law,  but 
its  use  was  encouraged  by  an  even  more  powerful  force^ 
social  custom.  As  the  language  of  the  ruling  class, 
French  came  to  be  regarded  as  the  polite  and  cultivated 
language.  Instruction  was,  after  a  time,  no  longer  given 
in  English,  but  those  who  studied  at  all,  studied  French, 
and,  if  any  other  language,  Latin.  Even  when  Normandy 
was  lost  to  England  in  the  year  1204,  and  later  when,  in 
the  middle  of  the  century,  the  separation  between  the 
two  countries  became  more  complete  by  the  decrees  of 
King  Louis  IX  of  France  and  Henry  III  of  England, 
the  latter  prohibiting  Englishmen  from  holding  estates 
in  Normandy,  and  the  former  prohibiting  Normans  from 
holding  estates  in  England,  the  cultivation  of  French 
continued.  In  spite  of  these  decrees,  there  must  have 
been  a  continual  freshening  of  the  stream  of  influence  by 
the  passing  back  and  forth  of  Frenchmen,  not  only  Nor- 
ruans  but  Frenchmen  of  other  parts  of  France,  to 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  31 

from  England.  The  ties  of  blood  could  not  be  disre- 
garded, even  tho  political  conditions  had  changed. 
Another  main  reason  for  the  increasing  influence  of 
French  upon  English  is  to  be  found  in  the  way  in  which 
Englishmen  themselves  came  to  regard  French.  The 
great  body  of  Englishmen,!  the  plain  people  who  were/T  j^p 
little  influenced  by  questions  of  fashion  or  education^ 
never  spoke  anything  but  English.^  In  the  middle  and 
the  higher  social,  literary,  and  educational  life,  however, 
French  acquired  a  special  distinction.  As  the  Slanguage  i  fo, 
of  the  ruling  class  its  authority  was  naturally  great.  \  It 
was,  moreover,  commonly  regarded  as  the  politest  Ian-  ^ 
guage  of  Europe. .  The  University  of  Paris,  founded 
about  1170,  was  a  place  of  resort  for  the  scholars  of  all 
Europe.  |  In  the  French  language  was  written  a  great  \ 
and  growing  literature,^  which  other  nations,  the  English 
especially,  strove  to  imitate  and  absorb.  It  was  the  lan- 
guage also  of  polite  intercourse,  and  the  French  capital 
was  regarded  not  only  as  the  seat  of  learning  and  of 
letters  but  also  of  refinement.  There  grew  up  thus  in 
England  a  sort  of  Gallomania,  as  it  may  be  called,  a 
sense  of  respect  and  admiration  for  everything  French 
because  it  was  French.  The  height  of  this  fashion  was 
not  reached  until  between  the  years  1300  and  1350^  but 
it  is  this  fashionable  fad  more  than  anything  else  that 
accounts  for  the  powerful  influence  of  French,  in  this 
early  period,  upon  English.  The  French  which  was  imi- 
tated in  the  fourteenth  century  was  of  course  no  longer 
Norman  French,  but  the  French  of  Paris.  For  it  Eng- 
lish was  even  in  danger  for  a  time  of  being  given  up 
altogether  as  the  language  of  literature  and  polite  conver- 
sation. Those  who  continued  to  use  English  strove  often 


32  MODERN  ENGLISH 

to  make  it  as  near  like  French  as  possible.     The  . 

tion  consisted  in  the  borrowing  of  words  and  phrases,  in 

^   the  adaptation  of  French  locutions  and  idioms  to  English 

usage,  in  the  carrying  over  of  French  pronunciation  to 

,»    English  words   and  even  in  such  mechanical  matters  as 

y  r  spelling  and  handwriting.  This  use  of  French  spelling 
and  writing  was  in  a  way  forced  upon  English.  Since 
instruction  in  English  was  no  longer  given  in  the  schools, 
but  only  in  French,  when  one  wished  to  write  English 
thejjules  of  French  spelling  and  the  style  of  French 
writing  were  simply  transferred  to  English.j  The  extent 
to  which  this  Gallicizing  of  the  English  language  was 
carried  may  be  seen  from  the  usage  of  the  writer  of  the 
collection  of  saints'  lives  known  as  the  Early  South 
English  Legendary,  written  about  1280.  The  author,  or 
compiler,  of  this  legendary,  judging  from  the  sentiments 
he  expresses,  was  undoubtedly  a  patriotic  Englishman, 
but  his  patriotism  did  not  prevent  him  from  following 
r  French  fashions.  Thus  he  seems  to  have  pronounced 
\"  his  final  th's  in  English  words  like  breath,  death,  etc., 
with  a  very  faint  and  almost  disappearing  sound,  as  a 
Frenchman,  to  whom  the  th  sound  was  strange  and 
difficult,  would  have  done.  He  even  rimes  words  which 
have  final  th  with  words  which  do  not,  as  for  example, 
stand  eth  and  lande.1  In  imitation  of  French  spellings 
like  langue,  morgue,  etc.,  in  which  u  is  written  after  the  g 
to  indicate  the  hard  quality  of  the  sound,  we  have  spell- 
ings such  as  finguer  for  finger,  kingue  for  king,  and 
doggue  for  dog.  Such  spellings  have  not  indeed  entirely 
disappeared  from  English  to  this  day.  We  still  spell 
tongue,  which  is  Old  English  tunge,  and  which  accord- 

\  *  The  final  t  of  lande  is  of  course  pronounced. 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  33 

ingly  snould  give   Modern   English   tung,  like   lung; 
but  both  the  o  instead  of  w,  and  the  u  after  the  g, 
are  survivals  of   these    French    spellings.     Other  in- 
stances of  French  gu  in  English  words  are  guilt,  guild,    j 
guess. 

Toward  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century,  how- 
ever, this  mad  admiration  for  everything  French  began 
to  suffer  a  decline  and  English  began  to  rise  again  to 
the  ascendency.  Thus  in  1362  it  was  decreed  that  all 
pleadings  in  the  law  courts  in  England  should  be  made 
in  English  and  not  in  French,  and  in  the  same  year  the 
English  Parliament  for  the  first  time  was  opened  with 
an  English  speech.  French  still  continued  to  be  culti- 
vated as  a  polite  accomplishment,  as  indeed  it  is  to  this 
day,  but  from  this  time  on  English  came  to  be  more  and 
more  the  language  of  literature  and  scholarship,  as  well 
as  of  the  higher  official  and  court  life  in  England,  and 
by  1500  (the  end  of  the  Middle  English  period)  French 
had  long  ceased  to  be  a  serious  rival  of  English.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  English  which 
thus  came  to  the  front  again  was  very  different  from  the 
literary  English  of  the  period  before  the  French  inva- 
sion. English  had  been  so  long  neglected  in  favor  of 
French  that  the  feeling  for  it  as  a  standard  literary  lan- 
guage had  largely  died  out.  It  became  for  a  time 
almost  altogether  a  popular  dialect.  Consequently  when 
English  began  again  to  rise  into  supremacy,  it  was  this 
popular  transformation  of  the  older  English  that  grad- 
ually assumed  the  rank  of  the  new  standard  speech.  Jiie 
new  English  of  the  Middle  English  period  is  therefore  ^ 
the  Old  English  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  period  as  this  latter 
was  modified,  first  by  the  influence  of  French,  and 


v 

r 


34  MODERN  ENGLISH 

second  by  its  passage  through  the  transforming  bath._of 
the  popular  speech. 

8.  Summary  of  the  Influence  of  the  Norman  Con- 
quest. The  influence  of  the  Norman  Conquest  and  its 
consequences  upon  the  English  language  and  the  English 
people  was  profound.  The  racial  distinction  between 
Norman  and  Englishman  was  soon  lost ;  for  the  Norman 
when  he  had  accepted  England  as  his  home,  and  even  more 
when  he  had  accepted  English  speech,  became  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes  English.  So  completely  were  English 
and  Norman  assimilated  that  the  third  or  fourth  genera- 
tion after  the  Conquest  must  often  have  been  unable  to 
distinguish  between  the  two  elements  of  the  population ; 
all  were  alike  English.  It  was,  however,  a  new  English 
and  a  different  England  that  gradually  emerged  after  the 
Conquest.  The  speech  and  the  whole  body  of  thought 
of  the  nation,  as  a  result  of  the  direct  and  indirect 
influence  of  the  Conquest,  had  undergone  a  remarkable 
change.  In  the  first  place,  from  a  comparatively  highly 
inflected  language,  English  became  a  language  of  few  in- 

\  flections  (see  pp.  77  ff.).  The  vocabulary  of  the  language 
changed  from  a  "  pure  "  vocabulary,  that  is,  one  made  up 
of  words  of  the  same  linguistic  stock,  to  a  bilingual 
vocabulary,  a  vocabulary  made  up  of  Teutonic  and 
Romance  elements.  The  influence  of  French  extended 
also  to  the  phrasing  of  English,  the  grouping  of  words 

/     in  the  sentence,  and  in  many  ways,  direct  and  indirect, 

I     which  are  difficult  to  follow,  the  new  tendencies  affected 

J  the  whole  tone  of  English  thought  and  expression.    The 

language   after  it  has   been   subjected   to   the   French 

influence   is  m^re.jupple;   it  is  the  vehicle   for  more 

Y  varied  forms  of  expression  than  it  had  been  before.     In 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  35 

this  it  was  merely  following  the  change  in  the  intellec- 
tual  life  of  the  English  people,  which  after  the  Conquest 
was  richer  and  touched  many  more  sides  of  Life  than  it 
ever  had  in  the  Old  English  period.  This  new  spirit  in 
English  thought  and  letters  received  its  fullest  ex- 
pression in  the  writings  of  G^oJfre^£hay[£ex,Xl^ifi  CD^ 
^400).  In  Chaucer  we  have  one  who  was  not  only  a 
consummate  artist  in  the  use  of  language,  but  one  also 
who,  instead  of  the  simple  Old  English  themes  of  war- 
fare and  religion,  could  sound  the  whole  gamut—of 
JimMEuamQ&pn,  love,  pathos,  humor,  chivalry,  the  dra- 
matic instinct,  the  feeling  for  nature,  in  short  all  those 
shades  of  thought  and  feeling  which  the  English  heart 
is  capable  of  experiencing  or  the  English  tongue  of 
expressing. 

9.  Modern  England.  The  England  of  the  close  of 
the  Middle  English  period  was  never  again  subjected  to 
foreign  invasion  or  to  any  great  external  racial  influences. 
The  thought  and  language  of  the  people  followed  in 
general  a  peaceful  line  of  development,  accompanying 
the  intellectual,  industrial,  and  political  growth  of  the 
country  and  of  the  world  as  a  whole.  The  periods  in 
modern  times  that  have  been  most  important  for  the 
history  of  the  language  are  the  Renascence  period,  from 
about  1500  to  the  death  of  Shakspere  in  1616,  in 
which  the  main  purpose  was  that  of  "  enriching "  the 
language  (see  pp.  234  ff.);  the_  period  of  Dryden 
(1631-1700)  and  Pope  (1688-1744),  the  so-called 
Augustan  period  of  English  literature,  in  which  much 
thought  and  attention  was  given  to  "  polishing  "  and 
u  purifying  "  the  language  ;  and  the  most  recent  period 
of  scientific,  industrial,  commercial,  and  political  expan- 


36  MODERN  ENGLISH 

sion,  with  its  marvelous  extension  of  the  bounds  of 
human  thought  and  activity.  Of  these  later  influences 
perhaps  the  most  significant  are  those  which  arise  from 
the  commercial  and  colonial  expansion  of  the  English 
people,  and  concerning  these  a  word  in  especial  may 
be  said. 

10.  World  English.  History  makes  few  appeals  to 
the  imagination  stronger  than  that  presented  by  the  pic- 
ture of  the  little  kingdom  of  England  reaching  out  step 
by  step  until  now  its  speech  and  its  civilization  circle 
the  globe.  Beginning  with  the  union  of  Scotland  and 
England  under  one  king  in  1603,  and  the  conquest  of 
Ireland  under  Elizabeth,  the  three  countries,  which  by 
later  acts  of  union  formed  the  kingdom  of  Great  Brtiain 
and  Ireland,  entered  on  a  period  of  territorial  and  racial 
expansion  that  almost  passes  belief.  By  the  settlement 
at  Jamestown  in  1607,  and  the  later  settlements  in  other 
parts  of  this  country,  the  national  speech  of  the  Conti- 
nent of  North  America  was  determined  as  English,  a 
fact  assured  by  the  victory  of  Wolfe  over  Montcalm  in 
1759.  The  separation  of  the  colonies  from  the  mother 
country  in  1776,  and  the  later  opening  of  their  gates  to 
almost  countless  hosts  of  foreign  immigrants  have  not 
availed  to  change  the  destiny  of  the  English  language 
in  the  United  States.  It  is  to-day  as  much  the  national 
speech  of  the  country  as  it  is  of  Canada  or  of  England 
herself.1  By  the  English  settlement  of  Australia  in  the 

1  Perhaps  the  opinion  of  an  Englishman  on  this  point  may  be  worth  quot- 
ing. It  is  that  of  E.  A.  Freeman,  the  historian  of  the  Norman  Conquest, 
who,  in  his  Impressions  of  the  United  States,  London,  1883,  speaks  as  follows : 
"  To  me  the  English-speaking  Common  wealth  on  the  American  mainland  is 
simply  one  part  of  the  great  English  folk,  as  the  English-speaking  king- 
dom in  the  European  island  is  another  part.  My  whole  line  of  thought 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  37 

early  nineteenth  century,  the  speech  of  that  country 
also  became  English.  In  India,  which  was  first  con- 
quered by  the  English  in  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century,  the  native  speech  of  the  country,  already  a 
highly  developed  language  in  which  a  great  literature  was 
preserved,  has  maintained  its  existence  as  the  popular  and 
native  language.  English  is,  however,  the  official  lan- 
guage of  the  country,  and  is  becoming  more  and  more  the 
language  of  business,  commerce,  and  education.  Other 
colonies,  or  offshoots  of  colonies,  in  which  English  is 
spoken,  are  South  Africa,  New  Zealand,  and  Jamaica. 

The  English  language  is  coming  to  be  used  also  more 
and  more  in  countries  which  are  not  under  English 
domination.  It  is  to  a  large  extent  now  the  language  of 
cosmopolitan  intercourse  in  Europe,  and  there  are  few 
cities  in  which  English  is  not  sufficient  on  the  main  roads 
of  travel  to  meet  all  a  traveler's  needs.  English  is  thus 
slowly  taking  the  place  formerly  filled  by  French.  Eng- 
lish is  also,  to  a  considerable  extent,  the  language  of 
international  commerce.  Nautical  and  manufacturing 
terms,  words  derived  from  English  social  customs,  from 
English  sports  and  games,  in  Germany,  France,  and  in 
other  nations,  are  evidence  of  the  growing  prestige  of 
English.1  In  the  Far  East,  in  China,  Japan,  and  the 

and  study  leads  me  to  think,  more  perhaps  than  most  men,  of  the  everlast- 
ing ties  of  blood  and  speech,  and  less  of  the  accidental  separation  wrought 
by  political  and  geographical  causes.  To  me  the  English  folk,  wherever 
they  may  dwell,  whatever  may  be  their  form  of  government,  are  still  one 
people.  .  .  .  And  so,  to  my  mind  at  least,  the  thought  of  the  true  unity  of 
the  scattered  English  folk  is  a  thought  higher  and  dearer  than  any  thought 
of  a  British  Empire,  to  the  vast  majority  of  whose  subjects  the  common 
speech  of  Chatham  and  Washington,  of  Gladstone  and  Garfield,  is  an  un- 
known tongue." 

1  For  lists  of  English  words  in  German  and  French,  see  below,  pp. 
255-257. 


38  MODERN  ENGLISH 

neighboring  islands,  English  occupies  a  unique  position 
as  an  almost  pan- Asiatic  language.  It  is  spoken  in  a 
corrupt  and  simplified  form,  known  as  Pidgin  English, 
by  merchants  and  sailors  all  along  the  coasts.  It  is  also, 
however,  the  language  of  oriental  diplomacy  to  a  con- 
siderable extent,  and  it  is  significant  that  the  modern 
educational  movement  both  in  China  and  Japan  lays 
great  stress  on  the  cultivation  of  the  English  language. 
American  possessions  in  the  Philippines  will  serve  to 
strengthen  the  position  which  English  takes  in  the 
Far  East.1 

It  has  been  estimated  that  the  number  of  people 
speaking  English  as  their  native  tongue  is  at  present 
between  one  hundred  and  twenty  and  one  hundred  and 
thirty  millions.  The  number  who  speak  German  is 
estimated  at  about  eighty  millions,  and  the  number  of 
Russians  at  about  the  same.  The  numbers  speaking 
French,  Spanish,  and  Italian  are  estimated  to  be  about 
fifty  millions  each.  The  rate  of  increase  of  English  in 
the  last  century  has  been  much  greater  than  that  of  any 
other  language.  Since  English  is  spread  over  such  a 
wide  extent  of  territory  and  is  the  language  of  rapidly 
growing  and  developing  countries,  it  is  altogether  likely 
that  this  proportionate  rate  of  increase  will  continue  to 
be  as  great  in  the  future  as  it  has  been  in  the  past. 
Added  to  this  the  fact  that  English  is  the  speech  of  an 


1  President  (then  Secretary)  Taft,  in  a  report  submitted  to  Congress 
in  January,  1908,  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  decade  of  the 
American  occupation  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  English  had  come  to  be 
spoken  by  a  greater  number  of  natives  than  had  been  the  case  with 
Spanish  in  the  several  centuries  of  Spanish  occupation, —  a  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  difference  between  English  and  Spanish  methods  of 
colonization. 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  39 

aggressive  and  venturesome  people,  that  because  of  the 
simplicity  of  its  structure  and  of  its  bilingual  character 
as  a  Romance  and  a  Teutonic  tongue  combined,  it  is  the 
most  easily  acquired  of  all  the  languages  of  the  western 
world,  obviously  English  has  a  better  chance  than  any 
other  living  language  of  becoming  a  world-language. 
Even  the  traditional  national  vices  of  insularity  and  con- 
ceit make  for  this  result.  The  Engish  and  Americans  are, 
undoubtedly,  the  greatest  travelers  of  modern  times,  and 
the  tenacity  with  which  they  hold  to  their  native  speech 
and  native  customs  in  foreign  lands,  while  it  often  justly 
exposes  them  to  the  charge  of  complacency  and  provin- 
ciality, at  the  same  time  makes  them  effective  distributors 
of  English  ideas  and  traditions.  If  Mohammed  will  not 
go  to  the  mountain,  then  the  mountain  must  come  to 
Mohammed.  That  English  will  ever  become  the  lan- 
guage of  familiar  daily  intercourse  in  non-English 
coun  tries  is,  of  course,  beyond  the  range  of  possibility. 
There  is  no  indication  that  any  country  will  ever  alto- 
gether give  up  its  native  idiom  for  another,  except 
through  the  gradual  method  of  complete  national  and 
racial  assimilation.  But  that  English  may  become  the 
language  of  international  science,  of  international  di- 
plomacy, of  international  travel  and  commerce,  is  quite 
within  the  limits  of  the  possible.  In  the  medieval  pe- 
riod the  various  nations  each  learned  one  other  language 
besides  their  native  idiom  for  the  purpose  of  interna- 
tional communication,  and  this  second  language  was 
always  Latin.  Later  the  place  of  Latin  tended  to  be 
taken  by  French.  Within  the  last  two  or  three  genera- 
tions, however,  French  has  begun  to  yield  to  English, 
and  the  universal  language  of  the  future  is  more  likely 


40  MODERN  ENGLISH 

to  be  English  than  any  other  of  the  tongues  of  modern 
or  ancient  Europe. 

11.  Artificial  Language.  Of  recent  years  a  great 
deal  has  been  said  about  a  universal  language.  In  all 
projects  of  this  nature  the  attempt  is  to  manufacture  an 
artificial  language  which  shall  be  free  of  the  defects  of 
existing  languages,  and  which,  because  of  its  reason- 
ableness and  economy,  will  induce  the  nations  of  the 
world  to  accept  it  in  the  place  of  their  native  speech. 
Artificial  languages  are  not  of  recent  origin.  Such  lin- 
guistic experiments  have  been  made  from  the  earliest 
times,  some  of  them  extremely  ingenious,  but  none  that 
ever  realized  in  the  slightest  degree  the  hopes  which 
their  creators  had  for  them.1  In  England  the  later 
seventeenth  and  early  eighteenth  centuries  were  pro- 
ductive of  a  number  of  artificial  languages.  One,  as  set 
forth  by  Sir  Thomas  Urquhart  in  a  volume  published 
in  London  in  1653,  bore  the  alluring  title  Logopandec- 
teision,  or  an  Introduction  to  the  Universal  Language 
digested  into  six  books,  published  both  for  his  own  utili- 
tie  and  that  of  all  pregnant  and  ingenious  spirits.  In 
our  own  day  various  "  ingenious  spirits "  have  promul- 
gated schemes  of  universal  language,  Volapuk,  Esper- 
anto, Glanik,  and  others,  literally  to  be  numbered  by 
the  dozen,  and  all  different.  Why  have  none  of  these 
experiments  succeeded?  In  the  first  place,  because  the 
attempt  to  foist  an  artificial  language  upon  a  people 
runs  counter  to  all  the  principles  of  development  that 
have  governed  the  growth  of  a  people.  A  native  speech 
arises  in  a  community  as  the  intimate  accompaniment 

1  For  a  full  description  of  all  these  endeavors,  see  Couturat  et  Lean, 
ffistoire  de  la  langue  universelle,  Paris,  1903. 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  41 

of  all  its  social  customs.  It  is  a  gradual  and  largely 
unconscious  growth,  arising  out  of  the  immediate  ex- 
periences of  life.  No  speech,  as  we  shall  have  continual 
occasion  to  point  out,  has  ever  submitted  to  the  sys- 
tematizings  of  the  theorist,  no  matter  how  reasonable 
and  consistent  these  seemed  to  be.  The  attempt,  there- 
fore, to  bring  about  the  acceptance  of  an  artificial  lan- 
guage on  reasonable  grounds  is  not  likely  to  succeed, 
because  of  the  simple  fact  that  a  language  is  not  under 
the  control  of  the  direct  reason.  It  is  a  common  social 
possession,  and  a  people  fortunately  does  not,  and  can- 
not, change  its  social  customs  and  habits  by  a  sudden 
act  of  will.  Moreover,  one  may  doubt  whether  an  arti- 
ficial  language,  the  best  that  can  be  devised  by  an  indi- 
vidual or  a  group  of  individuals,  ever  can  be  as  good 
as  a  natural  language.  A  natural  language  which  has 
developed  through  thousands  of  years  has  acquired 
possibilities  of  expression,  in  thought  and  especially  in 
feeling,  which  no  language  manufactured  in  cold  blood 
can  hope  to  equal.  The  wisdom  of  the  nation  is  greater 
than  the  wisdom  of  an  individual,  and  a  national  lan- 
guage sums  up  all  the  past  wisdom  of  the  people.  Yet 
again,  a  universal  language,  to  remain  universal  after 
it  had  once  been  accepted  by  all  peoples,  must  not  be 
allowed  to  change.  But  if  anything  can  be  learned 
from  the  history  of  language,  it  is  just  this,  that  all 
languages  are  continually  subject  to  change,  and  that 
nothing  can  prevent  them  from  changing.  The  advo- 
cates of  a  universal  language  must  accordingly  not  only 
perform  the  initial  miracle  of  getting  their  language 
accepted,  but  they  must  then  perform  the  second  mir- 
acle, a  continuous  one,  of  keeping  that  language  per- 


42  MODERN  ENGLISH 

manent  and  fixed.  In  short,  no  artificial  language,  DO 
matter  how  skilfully  it  is  constructed,  is  likely  ever  to 
extend  beyond  the  small  group  of  theorists  with  whom 
it  originates,  and  these  will  continue  to  pursue  it  only 
until  their  attention  is  attracted  to  some  more  divert- 
ing theory.  The  way  languages  spread  is  not  through 
theory,  but  through  their  use.  And  the  reason  why  the 
English  language  is  one  of  the  most  widely  distributed 
of  the  modern  world,  is  that  men  who  have  spoke  a 
English  have  made  their  way  to  all  corners  of  the  earth, 
have  carried  with  them  their  ideals  of  life  and  conduct, 
and,  with  these  ideals,  the  speech  in  which  they  find 
expression.  Artificial  languages  are  well  enough  as 
playthings  for  "ingenious  spirits,"  but  a  rc~^  xctnguag;e 
is  formed  in  the  market  places  and  by  the  firesides  of 
a  living  world. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  an  artificial  language  is  devised 
only  for  the  expression  of  simple  and  impersonal  ideaM, 
such  as  might  arise  in  international,  commercial,  or  evexi 
scientific  communication,  then  the  matter  becomes  im- 
portant only  to  a  relatively  small  number  of  people.  An 
artificial  language  of  such  kind  is  of  not  much  more  sig- 
nificance than  a  cable  code  or  a  system  of  signals.  Most 
of  the  languages  which  have  been  fashioned  for  sucb 
purposes  have  been  constructed  on  the  basis  of  Latin, 
as,  for  example,  the  at  present  much  exploited  Esper- 
anto. Latin  is  chosen  as  the  basis  because  it  is,  in  one 
form  or  another,  a  natural  inheritance  of  all  southern 
Europeans,  it  forms  a  large  part  of  the  English  vocabu- 
lary, and  third,  it  is  the  language  which  most  edu- 
cated persons  are  likely  to  know  —  or  to  have  known  -  - 
besides  their  native  speech,  if  they  know  any.  Bub 


THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  43 

obviously,  if  you  do  not  know  Latin,  and  it  is  hardly  a 
warrantable  assumption  that  everybody  knows  Latin, 
you  must  first  learn  it,  if  you  want  to  apply  it  to  the 
understanding  of  an  artificial  language  based  on  Latin. 
One  might  thus  have  to  learn  Latin,  supposedly  a  more 
difficult  language,  in  order  to  prepare  the  way  for  learn- 
ing an  easy,  artificial  language.  But  no  artificial  lan- 
guage has  yet  been  made  effective  for  international, 
scientific,  or  business  communication,  and  it  is  not  only 
doubtful  if  it  can  be,  but  also  if  it  were  made  generally 
effective,  whether  more  would  not  be  lost  than  would  be 
gained.  Certainly  an  artificial  language  would  be  harm- 
fid  if  it  should  in  any  way  prevent  or  limit  the  study  of 
the  natural  languages.  There  is  an  old  saying  that  a 
man  is  as  many  times  a  man  as  he  has  languages.  No 
artificial  language  will  ever  take  the  place  of  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  natural  languages;  at  most  it  can  only 
make  the  undiscriminating  satisfied  with  an  inadequate 
substitute. 


in 

THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE 

1.  The  Classification  of  Languages.     One  of  the 

important  results  of  the  modern  study  of  language  has 
been  the  classification  of  the  various  languages  of  the 
world  into  groups  according  to  their  relationships. 
Altho  the  science  of  language  has  not  been  able  to 
confirm  the  Scriptural  story  of  the  original  creation  of 
language,  nor,  as  yet,  even  to  arrive  at  any  altogether 
satisfactory  theory  of  the  beginnings  of  speech,  it  never- 
theless has  done  a  great  deal  in  discovering  lines  of  evo- 
lution and  development  in  those  languages  of  which  we 
have  record.  It  has  discovered  that  there  has  been  a 
continual  change  and  growth  in  language,  that  the  lan- 
guages of  modern  times  are  each  of  them  a  historic 
product  which  developed  slowly  and  regularly  out  of 
preceding  stages.  Moreover,  it  has  shown  that  many 
apparently  dissimilar  languages  are  really  closely  related 
and  are  the  descendants  of  some  single  original  stock. 
It  has  thus  divided  languages  into  families. 

2.  The    Indo-European    Family    of    Languages. 
One  of  the  largest  and  most  carefully  studied  groups  or 
families  of  languages  is  that  known  as  the  Indo-European 
or  Indo-Germanic  family.     This  group  comprises  certain 
of  the  languages  of  Asia  and  practically  all  the  languages 
of  Europe.     The  original  unified  Indo-European  lan- 
guage from  which  they  are  all  theoretically  derived  is  no 


THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE  45 

longer  in  existence.  Its  former  existence  is  inferred, 
however,  from  the  comparative  study  of  the  various 
Indo-European  languages,  since  no  theory  serves  so  well 
to  explain  the  many  similarities  which  exist  among  them 
as  the  theory  of  a  common  origin.  It  should  not  be  for- 
gotten, however,  that  the  theory  of  a  common  original 
language  from  which  the  various  Indo-European  lan- 
guages were  derived  does  not  carry  with  it  the  theory  of 
a  common  and  single  racial  ancestry  of  all  the  Indo- 
European  peoples.  In  the  course  of  its  development  the 
primitive  Indo-European  speech  undoubtedly  imposed 
itself  upon  peoples  of  widely  different  race,  very  much 
as  the  branch  languages,  French  or  English,  have  done 
in  later  periods.  We  accept,  therefore,  a  common  speech 
ancestry  for  the  Indo-European  peoples,  but  not  neces- 
sarily a  common  race  ancestry.  The  period  and  the 
place  in  which  this  common  original  language  was  spoken 
are  matters  of  very  uncertain  inference,  and,  indeed,  are 
matters  of  comparatively  slight  importance.  It  concerns 
us  much  more  to  know  the  history,  the  changes  and  de- 
velopments which  have  brought  about  the  differentia- 
tion of  the  various  languages  of  which  we  have  specific 
knowledge.  These  languages  have  been  carefully  studied, 
so  that  now  we  are  enabled  to  classify  them  according 
to  their  branches  and  subdivisions  in  an  orderly  fashion. 
The  following  is  a  list  of  the  main  members  of  the  family, 
beginning  with  the  languages  farthest  east  in  Asia  and 
proceeding  thence  in  order  to  the  languages  of  western 
Europe : 

1.  IndoJranian.  This  branch  is  subdivided  into  (a)  the 
Indian  languages,  including  Sanskrit,  the  ancient  literary 
language  of  India,  and  Prakrit  and  Pali,  the  modern  native 


46  MODERN  ENGLISH 

dialects  of  India ;  and  (b)  the  Iranian  languages,  including 
Persian  and  Avestan  in  their  various  periods,  besides  several 
other  languages  of  the  tablelands  of  Central  Asia. 

2.  Armenian,  spoken  in  parts  of  Asia  Minor. 

3.  Greek,  which  may  be  subdivided  into  the  various  Greek 
dialects,  Ionic,  Attic,  Doric,  etc. 

4.  Albanian,  spoken  in  the  limited  region  of  Albania, 
north  of  Greece. 

5.  Italic.   The  main  language  of  this  branch  is  Latin,  from 
which  are  derived  the  modern  Romance  languages,  French, 
Spanish,  Italian,  Portuguese,  and  Provencal,   and   several 
other  less  known  languages  besides. 

6.  Celtic.     This  branch  may  be  subdivided  into  Gallic, 
the  language  of  the  people  of  ancient  Gaul,  of  which  little  is 
known ;  British,  the  language  of  the  original  inhabitants  of 
Britain ;  Welsh,  the  language  of  Wales  ;  and  Gaelic,  includ- 
ing the  language  of  the  Scotch  Highlands,  Irish,  and  Manx. 

7.  Teutonic  or  Germanic.     This  branch,  the  one  we  are 
particularly  interested  in,  falls  into  three  main  subdivisions, 
as  follows : 

(a)  East  Germanic,  the  main  dialect  of  which  is  Gothic, 

known  chiefly  from  fragments  of  a  translation  of 
the  Bible,  made  in  the  fourth  century  by  Ulfilas, 
the  bishop  of  the  West  Goths. 

(b)  North  Germanic,  including  Icelandic,  Norse,  Swed- 

ish, and  Danish. 

(c)  West  Germanic,  including  the  following  languages : 

I.  English,  in  its  various  periods  of  Anglo-Saxon,  or 

Old  English,  Middle  English,  and  Modern  English. 

II.  Frisian,  in  the  two  periods  of  Old  and  Modern 
Frisian. 

III.  Franconian,  the  chief  modern  representatives  of 
which  are  the  languages  of  Holland  and  Flanders. 

IV.  Low    German,    the    modern   representative    of 
which  is  Plattdeutscii, 


THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE  47 

V.  High  German,  in  its  three  periods  of  Old  High 
German,  Middle  High  German,   and  New  High 
German,  the  language  of  modern  Germany. 
8.    Balto-Slavonic.     This  branch  falls  into  two  main  divi- 
sions (a)  th3  Baltic  languages,  including  Old  Prussian,  Lithu- 
anian, and  Lettic;  and  (&)  the  Slavonic  languages,  including 
Russian,  Bulgarian,  Illyrian,  Bohemian,  and  Polish. 

3.  The  Principles  of  Classification  of  Languages. 

The  question  arises,  How  do  we  know  that  these  lan- 
guages are  related  ?  What  are  the  points  of  difference 
and  resemblance  which  justify  us  in  holding  together  the 
languages  of  the  Indo-European  family  in  a  single  group, 
and  at  the  same  time  in  dividing  this  group  into  the 
eight  branches  indicated  above,  with  their  further  sub- 
divisions? In  answering  the  question,  it  should  be 
noted,  first,  that  the  Indo-European  family  is  consti- 
tuted a  group  apart  from  the  other  languages  of  the 
world  by  certain  features  which  all  the  languages  of  the 
family  have  in  common,  but  which  are  unknown  to  lan- 
guages outside  the  group.  Thus,  first  of  all,  the  Ian-  (j  j 
guages  of  the  Indo-European  family  are  all  inflectional 
in  structure,  that  is,  they  indicate  the  relations  which 
words  bear  to  each  other  in  the  sentence  by  the  use  of 
case,  gender,  number,  tense,  voice,  and  other  endings. 
This  seems  to  those  whose  native  speech  is  inflectional 
such  a  natural  characteristic  of  language  that  it  is  often 
supposed  that  all  languages  make  use  of  this  device. 
Such  is  not  the  case,  however,  and  there  are  certain  lan- 
guages, like  the  Chinese,  which  have  no  inflection  at 
all,  and  others,  like  the  Turkish,  which  have  a  kind  of 
inflection  that  is  so  different  from  our  kind  of  inflection 
that  it  has  to  be  put  into  an  entirely  separate  class  from  it. 


48  MODERN  ENGLISH 

In  the  second  place,  it  has  been  found  that  the  Ian 
guages  of  the  Indo-European  family  have  a  considerable 
number  of  words  in  common  that  are  not  found  in  other 
languages,  and  the  number  and  the  character  of  these 
words  are  so  significant  as  to  lead  one  almost  necessarily 
to  the  inference  that  they  are  a  common  inheritance  from 
a  common  original  stock.  The  study  of  the  languages 
of  the  Indo-European  family  from  the  point  of  view  of 
their  sounds  and  of  their  syntax  confirms  the  results  of 
the  study  of  vocabulary  and  inflection,  and  makes  un- 
avoidable the  conclusion  that  we  have  in  them  a  group 
of  closely  and  mutually  related  languages. 

The  method  by  which  the  division  of  the  family  into  its 
branches  has  been  obtained  is  similar  to  that  which  deter- 
mined the  classification  of  the  family  as  a  whole.  It  has 
been  found  that,  altho  all  the  branches  of  the  family 
have  certain  characteristics  in  common,  which  hold  them 
together  as  a  family,  at  the  same  time  each  branch  has 
its  own  individual  characteristics,  due  to  the  special  de- 
velopment it  has  followed  and  the  special  influences  to 
which  it  has  been  subjected.  It  would  carry  us  too  far 
at  present  to  attempt  to  show  all  the  special  characteris- 
tics of  each  branch,  for  example,  how  Greek  differs  from 
Latin  and  how  Celtic  differs  from  both  ;  all  we  can  do  is 
to  point  out  the  main  characteristics  which  distinguish 
the  Teutonic  or  Germanic  branch,  the  one  in  which  our 
special  interest  lies. 

4.  The  Teutonic  Languages.  The  main  character- 
istics which  the  Teutonic  languages  have  in  common  as 
features  distinguishing  them  from  the  other  Indo-Euro- 
pean languages  are  four  :  (a)  a  regular  shifting  or  change 
of  consonants,  known  as  Grimm's  Law ;  (b)  the  Teu- 


THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE  49 

tonic  classification  of  the  verb  as  strong  and  weak  (or  ir- 
regular and  regular)  ;  (c)  the  twofold  declension  of  the 
adjective  as  strong  and  weak ;  (d)  the  Teutonic  system 
of  word-accent.  The  last  three  of  these  characteristics 
need  only  a  word  of  explanation,  but  the  importance  of 
Grimm's  Law  makes  it  deserving  of  a  more  extended 
discussion,  and  we  shall  therefore  leave  it  to  the  last. 

A  comparison  of  the  Modern  English  verb,  which  is 
representative  of  the  Teutonic  verb  in  general,  with  the 
Latin  as  representative  of  the  original  Indo-European 
verb,  will  show  the  distinguishing  features  of  the  Teu- 
tonic verbal  system.  The  English  verb  consists  of  two 
classes,  the  weak,  or  regular  verb,  which  forms  its  past 
tense  by  adding  d,  or  ed  (sometimes  assimilated  to  f)  to 
the  present  or  infinitive  stem,  as  for  example,  walk, 
walked,  walked;  and  second,  the  strong,  or  irregular 
verb,  which  forms  its  tenses  by  an  internal  change  of 
the  radical  vowel  of  the  word,  as  in  the  verb  sing,  sang, 
sung.  The  Latin  verb,  on  the  other  hand,  falls  into  a 
number  of  different  classes,  dependent  to  be  sure  on  the 
formation  of  the  principal  parts,  but  in  which  can  be 
found  no  such  simple  principle  of  tense  formation  as  that 
which  distinguishes  the  English  verb. 

The  twofold  declension  of  the  adjective  has  been  lost 
in  Modern  English,  inasmuch  as  the  declension  of  the 
adjective  (except  for  comparison)  has  been  lost  alto- 
gether. In  the  Old  English  period  of  the  language, 
however,  the  full  declension  of  the  adjective  was  still 
maintained,  as  it  is  in  New  High  German  to  this  day. 
The  simple  principle  of  it  is  this  —  that  when  the  adjec- 
tive is  preceded  by  a  demonstrative  pronoun  or  a  definite 
article,  it  is  declined  in  one  way,  called  weak,  and  when 

4 


50  MODERN   ENGLISH 

not  preceded  by  a  demonstrative  pronoun  or  a  definite 
article,  it  is  declined  in  another  way,  called  strong. 
Thus  the  phrase  These  young  boys  would  take  the  weak 
form  of  the  adjective  in  Old  English,  ]>as  geongan  cnapan  ; 
but  the  phrase  Young  boys  would  take  the  strong  form, 
Q-eonge  cnapan.  Latin,  like  Modern  English,  would  take 
the  same  form  of  the  adjective  in  both  phrases. 

The  Teutonic  system  of  word-accent  is  sufficiently 
illustrated  by  Modern  English  usage.  The  rule  there  is 
that  words  of  native  origin  usually  take  the  stress  on  the 
root  syllable,  and  this  root  syllable,  except  in  the  case  of 
prepositional  compounds,  is  almost  always  the  first  sylla- 
ble of  a  word.  Moreover,  the  accent  of  English  words  is 
$3&d,  that  is,  a  noun  has  the  same  accent,  no  matter 
what  its  case  may  be,  and  a  verb  keeps  the  same  accent 
through  all  its  various  inflections.  Latin,  on  the  con- 
trary, which  is  again  representative  of  the  Indo-European 
accent,  has  what  is  called  a  free  or  variable  accent,  chang- 
ing with  the  various  forms  of  a  word.  Thus  the  nomi- 
native is  stressed  imperdtor,  but  the  accusative  is  imper- 
at6rem.  The  English  derivative  word,  "  emperor,"  has 
a  fixed  accent  on  the  first  syllable. 

5.  Grimm's  Law.  This  law  is  named  Grimm's  Law 
because  it  has  become  generally  known  through  its  for- 
mulation in  the  year  1822,  by  the  German  scholar,  Jacob 
Grimm ,  who  was  not  only  the  writer  of  the  famous  fairy 
tales,  but  was  also  a  philologist  of  great  industry  and 
learning.  It  is  called  a  law,  but  it  is  purely  an  empiri- 
cal law.  That  is  to  say,  by  observation  the  discovery 
was  made  that  a  definite  set  of  linguistic  phenomena 
operated  in  a  certain  regular  way,  and  the  generalization 
drawn  from  this  observation  was  formulated  as  the  law, 


THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE  51 

or  rule,  of  the  phenomena.  This  kind  of  law  does  not 
imply  that  the  phenomena  must  act  in  a  certain  way, 
that  there  is  a  compelling  law-giver  or  power  back  of  the 
law  which  controls  its  action.  It  simply  states  what 
does  happen,  or  what  appears  to  our  observation  to  hap- 
pen. The  ultimate  explanation  of  the  cause  of  the  series 
of  phenomena  known  as  Grimm's  Law  is  one  that,  so 
far,  has  escaped  the  scientific  students  of  language.  The 
facts  as  they  are  we  accept  because  we  observe  them,  but 
no  satisfactory  theory  in  explanation  of  these  facts  has 
yet  been  brought  forward. 

The  phenomena  which  are  the  facts  upon  which 
Grimm's  Law  is  based  are  certain  regular  changes  in 
sounds.  It  was  observed  that  where  Indo-European 
words  (as  represented  say  by  Greek  or  Latin)  appeared 
with  certain  consonants,  the  same  word  in  the  Teutonic 
languages  appeared  with  different  consonants,  always, 
however,  according  to  a  regular  scheme  of  equivalents. 
Thus  Indo-European  p  became  regularly  Germanic/, 
and  d  became  regularly  t ;  the  relation  of  English  foot  to 
Greek  71-08-05  (pod-os)  is  therefore  obvious.  Other  illus- 
trations of  the  change  of  p  to  /  are  Latin  pater,  English 
father  ;  Latin  pellis,  English  fell.  The  change  of  Indo- 
European  d  to  t  is  further  illustrated  by  English  tooth, 
Latin  dent-is ;  English  ten  (Old  English  tiff  on),  Latin 
decem.  Another  regular  change,  which  has  been  illus- 
trated by  the  word-pairs  English  father,  Latin  pater,  and 
English  tooth,  Latin  dent-is,  is  that  of  Indo-European  t 
to  Teutonic  th.  Further  illustrations  are  Latin  trest 
English  three;  Latin  tennis,  English  thin;  Latin  tu, 
English  thou.  Another  regular  change  is  that  from 
Indo-European  o  to  Teutonic  h,  as  in  Latin  corn-us,  Eng- 


52  MODERN  ENGLISH 

lish  "horn;  Latin  coil-is,  English  hill.  Illustrations  of 
these  changes  might  be  increased  indefinitely.  Instead 
of  adding  others,  however,  it  will  suffice  to  make  a  gen- 
eral statement  of  all  the  consonants  affected  by  the  law 
and  their  correspondences.  They  may  be  grouped  as 
follows : 

The  Indo-European  labial  consonants  6A,  6,  p  became  re- 
spectively the  Teutonic  consonants  &,  p,  /. 

The  Indo-European  dental  consonants  dh,  cZ,  t  became  re- 
spectively the  Teutonic  consonants  d,  t,  th. 

The  Indo-European  palatal  and  guttural  consonants  gh,  0, 
Jc  (c),  became  respectively  the  Teutonic  consonants  g,  k,  h. 

It  should  be  understood,  of  course,  that  this  is  a  very 
general  statement  of  Grimm's  Law,  and  that,  as  thus  ex- 
pressed, it  is  open  to  numerous  exceptions  and  to  the 
qualifications  of  some  important  sub-laws.  Moreover,  it 
should  be  remembered  in  tracing  back  English  words 
to  their  cognates  in  the  other  Indo-European  languages 
which  are  not  subject  to  this  shifting  of  consonants,  as  for 
example,  Latin,  that  these  other  languages  may  also  have 
had  each  its  own  peculiar  development  in  its  consonant 
system  which  may  serve  to  obscure  the  simple  opera- 
tion of  the  law.  It  is  also  apparent  that  only  those  Eng- 
lish words  which  are  of  native  origin,  that  is,  only  that 
half  of  our  bilingual  language  which  is  Teutonic  and 
not  late  borrowed  Romance,  can  be  subject  to  Grimm's 
Law.  Despite  its  various  restrictions  and  qualifications, 
however,  Grimm's  Law  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  lin- 
guistic principles  which  we  possess.  It  enables  us  not 
only  to  group  the  Teutonic  languages  together,  but  also 
often  to  determine  the  history  and  etymology  of  the  vo- 
cabularies of  the  various  Teutonic  languages,  to  tell 


THE  ENGLISH  LANGUAGE  53 

what  words  are  native  and  what  are  foreign.  Moreover, 
the  study  of  Grimm's  Law  has  carried  in  its  wake  the 
discovery  of  many  other  linguistic  laws  and  principles 
which  are  of  the  greatest  interest  and  importance,  but 
which  cannot  be  entered  into  at  present. 

6.  English  and  German.  The  exact  relation  be- 
tween Modern  English  and  Modern  German  should  be 
alearly  understood.  Of  course  one  is  not  derived  from 
the  other,  as  is  so  frequently  the  popular  belief.  The 
number  of  words  in  the  German  language  which  were 
directly  borrowed  from  English  is  comparatively  small, 
most  of  them  having  been  taken  over  of  recent  years, 
and  the  same  is  true  of  the  German  words  in  the  Eng- 
lish language.1  The  two  languages  are,  however,  of  the 
same  stock,  and  they  resemble  each  other  because  they, 
like  the  other  Teutonic  languages,  are  derived  from 
some  common  original  Teutonic  mother  speech,  which 
is  no  longer  in  existence  and  which  has  left  no  written 
records,  but  the  existence  of  which  we  infer  from  the 
comparative  study  of  the  various  Teutonic  languages, 
just  as  we  infer  the  former  existence  of  a  parent  Indo- 
European  speech  for  all  the  different  Indo-European 
languages.  German  and  English,  therefore,  have  much 
in  common  because  they  inherit  their  language  from  a 
common  ancestral  speech.  They  differ,  on  the  other 
hand,  from  each  other,  because  throughout  centuries  of 
development  each  has  followed  its  own  course  and  has 
been  subject  to  its  own  special  influences.  The  most 
important  special  development  of  German,  which  differ- 
entiates it  from  English,  is  what  is  known  as  the  second 
shifting  of  consonants.  English  and  German  alike  are 

1  For  a  list  of  these  words,  see  Delow,  pp.  255-256. 


54  MODERN  ENGLISH 

subject  to  Grimm's  Law,  or  the  first  shifting  of  conso- 
nants, but  the  German  consonants  which  resulted  from 
the  operation  of  Grimm's  Law  have  undergone  a  further 
change,  a  shifting  which  is  peculiar  to  that  language, 
and  which  is  one  of  the  things  which  justify  the  linguist 
in  setting  off  that  language  as  a  special  subdivision  of 
the  Teutonic  language.  Thus  where  English  has  p, 
German  usually  has/  or  pfin  cognate  words,  as  in  Eng- 
lish help,  German  helfen;  English  ship,  German  schiff; 
English  sleep,  German  schlafen  ;  English  sheep,  German 
schaf ;  English  sap,  German  sapf.  Likewise  where  Eng- 
lish has  d  German  usually  has  t,  as  in  the  following 
pairs  of  words :  dead,  tot  (formerly  spelled  todt)  ;  deaf, 
taub ;  deal,  theil  (the  h  being  silent  in  pronunciation); 
do,  thun;  cold,  kalt ;  hold,  halten;  and  so  with  many 
others.  English  t  frequently  appears  as  German  z  or  tz, 
as  in  to,  zu ;  tin,  zinn ;  tooth,  zahn  ;  tongue,  zunge ;  write, 
ritzen ;  cat,  katz ;  sit,  sitzen.  English  v  appears  in  cog- 
nate German  words  as  b,  as  in  over,  ober;  leave,  (er-) 
lauben ;  grave,  grab  ;  shove,  schieben ;  love,  liebe ;  knave, 
knabe. 

7.  Periods  of  English.  From  the  seventh  century, 
the  earliest  period  of  which  we  have  any  knowledge  of 
recorded  forms  of  English,  the  language  has  been  subject 
to  constant  change.  In  this  it  merely  partakes  of  the 
nature  of  language  in  general,  for  speech,  so  long  as  it 
is  living  in  actual  unconstrained  use,  is  continually 
growing  and  developing.  It  is  only  in  the  so-called 
"  dead  "  languages  that  language  can  be  drawn  up  into 
a  system  once  and  for  all.  From  the  earliest  Indo- 
European  times,  therefore,  down  to  the  present  day, 
it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  language  which  we  now  know 


THE  ENGLISH   LANGUAGE  55 

as  English  has  been  ceaselessly,  tho  often  impercepti- 
bly, dropping  old  and  assuming  new  forms.  Since 
this  process  has  been  unbroken  from  the  beginning,  it  is 
in  a  way  illogical  to  divide  the  history  of  the  language 
into  periods.  There  have  been,  however,  certain  times 
at  which  changes  took  place  more  rapidly  than  at  others, 
owing  to  special  attendant  circumstances,  and  provided 
we  keep  always  in  mind  that  the  dates  by  which  we 
divide  a  language  into  periods  are  more  or  less  arbi- 
trarily chosen,  they  will  serve  the  convenient  purpose  of 
indicating  roughly  the  large  general  divisions  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  language.  In  this  way  we  may  indi- 
cate three  great  divisions  in  the  history  of  English : 

I.   The  Old  English,  or  Anglo-Saxon   period,  beginning 

with  the  coming  of  the  Angles,  Jutes,  and  Saxons  to 

England  and  ending  with  the  Norman  Conquest  in 

1066,  or  better,  about  1100. 

II.    The  Middle  English  period,  extending  from  1100  to 

about  1500. 

III.   The  Modern  English  period,  extending  from  1500  to 
the  present  time. 

The  language  in  each  of  these  periods  is  distinguished 
by  developments  which  are  to  a  large  extent  characteristic 
of  the  respective  periods.  These  developments  affect 
all  the  various  sides  of  the  language,  —  sounds,  inflec- 
tions, words,  and  syntax,  and  it  will  be  the  purpose  of 
the  following  chapters  to  give  an  account  of  the  changes 
in  the  language  from  these  several  points  of  view. 


IV 

ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS 

1.  The  Nature  of  Inflection.  It  has  already  been 
pointed  out  (pp.  47  ff.)  that  inflection  is  one  of  the 
distinguishing  characteristics  of  the  family  of  Indo- 
European  languages.  The  extent  to  which  these  vari- 
ous languages  make  use  of  inflection  differs  greatly, 
and  there  is  often  considerable  variation,  as  in  English, 
even  in  the  periods  of  one  and  the  same  language. 
Broadly  defined,  inflection  is  the  change  or  variation 
in  the  forms  of  a  word  for  the  purpose  of  indicating 
corresponding  variations  in  its  meaning  and  use.  This 
definition  implies  that  there  is  a  certain  root  element 
which  remains  constant,  but  which  is  given  specific 
application  and  meaning  by  additions  to  this  element. 
This  definition,  however,  is  too  broad  for  the  traditional 
use  of  the  term  inflection,  since  it  includes  not  only 
inflection  for  person,  number,  case,  gender,  tense,  and 
so  forth,  but  also  such  word-changes  as  swift,  adjective, 
to  Bwift-ly,  adverb.  The  term  usually  employed,  how- 
ever, to  designate  such  a  change  as  that  of  swift  to 
swiftly  is  derivation  or  composition.  By  composition 
one  means  the  placing  together  of  two  word  elements 
each  of  which  has  a  more  or  less  separate  and  inde- 
pendent existence.  The  degrees  of  this  independence 
may  vary  greatly.  A  -compound  like  house-boat  is  made 
up  of  two  words,  each  of  which  may  be  completely 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  57 

independent.  On  the  other  hand  the  -ly  of  the  com- 
pound swiftly,  the  -dom  of  kingdom,  the  -ness  of  kind- 
ness, are  not  really  complete  separate  words.  They 
have,  however,  more  meaning  as  independent  elements 
in  the  word  than  true  inflections,  as  for  example  the 
plural  -s  of  books,  the  preterite  ending  -ed  in  differed, 
and  the  participial  ending  -en  in  spoken.  It  is  not 
always  easy,  in  fact  it  is  not  always  possible,  to  draw 
the  line  between  composition  and  inflection,  and  it  is 
altogether  probable  that  a  good  many  inflectional  ele- 
ments are  merely  weakened  forms  of  earlier  composi- 
tional elements  of  words.  The  two  things  run  into 
each  other  imperceptibly,  and  a  hard  and  fast  division 
between  them  cannot  be  made.  It  is  best  to  regard 
inflection  as  the  general  term,  including  inflection  proper 
and  derivation,  and  to  use  the  specific  term  derivation, 
or  composition,  for  those  instances  in  which  the  elements 
of  a  word  are  plainly  felt  to  have  separate  existence.1 

Inflection  may  be  of  three  kinds,  initial,  internal,  or 
end  inflection.  In  former  stages  of  the  language  initial 
inflection  was  used  to  form  the  past  tenses  of  certain 
verbs,  known  as  reduplicating  verbs ;  this  was  a  method 
of  tense  formation  similar  to  the  use  of  augments  in 
Greek.  It  has  been  completely  lost  in  later  English  and 
is  only  very  sparingly  represented  in  Old  English.  A 

1  A  definition  of  inflection  is  often  made  to  the  effect  that  inflection 
includes  only  those  variations  or  changes  in  the  form  of  a  word  for  the 
expression  of  different  uses  within  its  own  part  of  speech ;  when  the  part 
of  speech  is  changed,  then  we  have  composition.  But  the  noun  king  +  dom 
gives  kingdom,  which  is  still  a  noun ;  man  +  hood,  gives  manhood,  also  a 
noun.  Again  the  numeral  adjective  one  by  the  addition  of  -ly  becomes  only ; 
the  word  only  may  be  an  adjective,  as  in  the  only  man,  or  an  adverb,  as  in 
//'/  only  knew.  Shall  we  call  the  change  of  one  to  only  inflection  when  only 
is  used  as  an  adjective,  and  composition  when  it  is  used  as  an  adverb? 


58  MODERN  ENGLISH 

kind  of  initial  inflection  is  used  in  Modern  English  to 
indicate  gender,  as  in  man-servant  and  maid-servant,  cock- 
sparrow^  hensparrow.  It  is  better,  however,  to  regard 
such  words  as  compounds,  or  derivatives,  since  the  two 
elements  of  which  each  is  composed  have  separate  exis- 
tence. The  word  woman,  which  looks  as  tho  it  were 
the  feminine  of  man  with  the  feminine  inflectional  sylla- 
ble w0-prefixed,  is  originally  a  compound  word  which  has 
become  obscured.  It  is  Old  English  wif-,  the  Modern 
English  "  wife,"  +  man  =  wifeman.  The  words  male  and 
female  also  look  like  inflectional  forms  of  the  same  word, 
but  historically  they  are  not.  The  word  male  comes 
through  the  French  from  the  Latin  masculus,  a  word  of 
the  same  meaning.  The  word  female  comes  from  Latin 
femella,  a  diminutive  oifemina,  "woman."  This  word 
should  give  in  English  the  iormfemell,  which  indeed  is 
the  form  that  Chaucer  and  his  contemporaries  used. 
The  word  femell,  however,  became  confused  with  male 
and  the  second  syllable  of  it  was  supposed  to  be  the 
same  as  male,  hence  the  form  female.  The  syllable 
fe-,  consequently,  altho  it  originally  had  no  such  value, 
is  now  practically  felt  to  be  a  feminine  forming  inflec- 
tional prefix  to  male. 

Inflection  in  English  is  commonly,  however,  either  inter- 
nal or  end  inflection.  Examples  of  internal  inflection  are 
sing,  sang,  sung;  man,  men;  tooth,  teeth.  The  most 
general  method  of  inflection  in  English  consists  in  the 
addition  of  inflectional  elements  at  the  end  of  a  word, 
as  in  (1)  sing,  (he)  sings;  cat,  cats;  walk,  walked. 

There  are  three  other  ways  of  showing  the  different 
uses  of  a  word  which  are  not  true  inflections,  but  make- 
shifts to  take  the  place  of  inflections.  The  first  of  these 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  59 

is  the  use  of  the  mechanical  device  of  the  apostrophe  in 
the  possessive  case,  as  in  boy's,  boys';  so  far  as  the  sound 
of  these  words  is  concerned  they  cannot  be  distinguished 
from  the  nominative  and  objective  plural,  boys,  and  the 
value  of  the  apostrophe  is  purely  visual.  The  second 
device  is  that  of  using  altogether  different  words  for  the 
various  values  of  a  part  of  speech,  as  for  example  go,  went, 
gone;  am  or  is,  was,  been,  for  the  tenses  of  the  verb; 
bad,  worse,  worst;  good,  better,  best,  for  the  degrees  of 
the  adverb  or  adjective ;  /,  you,  he  for  the  persons  of  the 
personal  pronoun.  The  third  equivalent  for  true  in- 
flection is  the  device  of  using  a  phrase  as,  for  example, 
more  swift,  most  swift  in  the  comparison  of  the  adjective 
and  adverb;  (he)  has  gone,  (he)  had  gone,  etc.,  in  the 
conjugation  of  the  verb.  English  has  been  driven  to  use 
these  devices  very  extensively  to  make  up  for  inflections 
which  it  has  lost. 

2.  English  as  a  "Grammarless  Tongue."  The  his- 
tory of  English  inflections  has  been  one  of  continuous 
loss.  As  far  back  as  we  can  go  in  the  history  of  the 
English  language  we  can  trace  a  gradual  breaking  down 
of  the  inflectional  system.  And  even  when  we  arrive 
at  the  earliest  periods  of  Old  English,  there  are  sure  in- 
dications that  the  language  is  already  in  a  transitional 
stage,  and  that  the  tendency  towards  inflectional  loss  in 
English  is  one  that  goes  far  back  into  the  prehistoric 
periods  of  the  language.  This  tendency  toward  inflec- 
tional loss  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  degeneration  of  the 
language.  The  language  of  less  highly  civilized  peoples 
and  eras  is  often  more  elaborately  inflected  than  the  lan- 
guage of  a  more  highly  developed  people  and  civilization. 
Thus  to-day  the  language  of  certain  tribes  of  African 


60  MODERN  ENGLISH 

savages  is  infinitely  more  complex  in  grammatical  struc- 
ture than  that  of  any  of  the  European  nations.  In  his 
speech,  the  savage  makes  use  of  a  great  deal  of  unneces- 
sary machinery,  and,  as  is  almost  always  true  of  the  rude 
and  uncultivated,  he  makes  a  tremendous  physical  effort 
in  attempting  to  express  the  content  of  his  mind. 

The  development  in  the  English  inflectional  system 
has,  of  course,  been  altogether  unconscious,  so  far  as  the 
users  of  the  language  are  concerned.  The  language 
changed  to  meet  the  needs  of  those  who  spoke  it,  and  no 
conscious  theory  of  improving  the  language  by  getting 
rid  of  unnecessary  inflections  has  ever  been  in  operation. 
Inflections  were  lost  because,  in  the  practical  use  of  the 
language,  men  tended  to  express  themselves  as  briefly  as 
possible.  In  English,  furthermore,  the  language  has  de- 
veloped freely  and  unrestrainedly  from  the  earliest  times 
down  to  the  Modern  English  period.  This  would  not 
have  been  the  case,  at  least  with  literary  English,  if  we 
had  had  a  great  classic  literature  in  the  Old  English 
period,  which  was  set  up  and  retained  as  a  model  for  all 
later  periods,  as  classical  Latin  literature  became  the 
model  for  all  later  generations  of  Romans.  If  that  had 
taken  place  our  language  would  now  probably  have  the 
comparatively  elaborate  Old  English  inflectional  system, 
instead  of  the  present  Modern  English  one,  which  is 
almost  completely  devoid  of  inflection. 

The  number  of  Modern  English  inflections  is  so  small 
that  they  may  be  very  briefly  summarised.  The  only  parts 
of  speech  which  are  capable  of  inflection  are  the  noun, 
the  pronoun,  the  verb,  and  for  the  single  characteris- 
tic of  comparison,  the  adverb  and  the  adjective,  altho 
comparison  might  just  as  well  be  called  composition 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  61 

or  derivation.  Of  these  the  noun  inflects  for  number, 
singular  and  plural,  and  for  one  case,  the  possessive, 
singular  and  plural,  the  other  cases  being  all  alike.  The 
personal  pronoun  inflects  for  three  persons,  for  three 
genders,  for  two  numbers,  and  in  some  forms  for  three 
cases,  nominative,  possessive,  and  objective.  The  other 
pronouns  inflect  only  for  number  and  case.  The  verb 
inflects  more  elaborately  than  the  noun,  but  less  elab- 
orately than  the  personal  pronoun.  The  present  tense 
usually  has  two  forms,  one  for  the  third  person,  singular 
number,  and  another  for  all  other  uses  of  the  present. 
There  is  a  distinctive  form  for  the  past  tense,  which  is 
the  same,  however,  for  all  persons  and  both  numbers. 
The  past  participle  sometimes  has  a  distinctive  form 
(see,  saw,  seen),  but  usually  it  is  the  same  as  the  form 
of  the  past  tense  (walk,  walked,  walked/  bind,  bound, 
bound).  In  a  few  instances,  that  is,  be  and  were,  the 
present  and  past  of  the  verb  to  be,  and  the  third  person 
singular  of  the  present  tense  of  other  verbs,  there  are 
special  forms  for  the  subjunctive  mood;  but  these  are 
rarely  used. 

So  few  are  the  inflections  of  Modern  English  as  com- 
pared with  those,  for  example,  of  Latin  or  Greek,  or 
even  of  Old  English,  the  earlier  stage  of  its  own  lan- 
guage, that  it  has  been  characterized  as  a  "  grammarless 
tongue."  This  characterization  is  approximately  true 
of  course  only  if  we  think  of  grammar  as  meaning  the 
same  thing  as  inflection.  In  Greek  and  Latin  grammar, 
inflection,  or  accidence  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  does 
play  a  large  part,  inflection  and  the  rules  of  concord 
being  the  two  important  divisions  of  classical  grammar. 
Through  its  loss  of  inflections,  however,  English  has 


62  MODERN  ENGLISH 

also  simplified  its  rules  of  concord,  and  it  consequently 
does  not  present  the  same  kind  of  grammatical  system 
as  the  classical  languages.  That  it  is  a  "grammarless 
tongue,"  however,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word  gram- 
mar, is  not  at  all  true.  The  language  has  its  struc- 
ture and  its  rules  of  right  and  wrong,  and  it  is  as 
necessary  to  observe  them  as  it  was  for  Greek  and 
Roman  to  observe  their  inflectional  system  and  rules  of 
concord. 

3.  The  Inflections  of  the  Old  English  Period.  It 
is  convenient  to  divide  the  history  of  English  inflections 
into  three  chronological  periods,  corresponding  to  the 
three  great  stages  in  their  development.  The  first  is  the 
Old  English  period,  from  the  earliest  records  to  about 
1100 ;  this  is  the  period  of  full  inflections.  The  second 
is  the  Middle  English  period,  from  1100  to  about  1500 ; 
this  is  the  period  of  leveled  inflections.  The  third  is  the 
Modern  English  period,  from  1500  to  the  present  time, 
and  this  is  the  period  of  lost  inflections.  The  periods  of 
course  pass  over  into  each  other  gradually,  altho  at 
the  two  main  dividing  lines,  at  1100  and  1500,  changes 
took  place  more  rapidly  than  during  the  central  portions 
of  the  periods.  There  is,  therefore,  both  in  the  Old  Eng- 
lish and  in  the  Middle  English  period,  a  fairly  stable  and 
fixed  central  or  classical  form  of  the  language  which  we 
shall  briefly  describe. 

The  Old  English  is  called  the  period  of  full  inflections 
because  the  inflections  of  the  language  at  that  time  were 
not  only  relatively  more  numerous  than  they  were  in 
later  periods,  but  were  also  pronounced  with  a  full  and 
distinct  sense  of  the  values  of  the  various  vowels  in  the 
inflectional  endings.  Since  the  inflectional  endings  bore 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  63 

no  accent,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  method  of  pronounc- 
ing the  inflectional  vowels  is  very  different  from  the 
tendency  of  Modern  English  (or  even  of  Middle  Eng- 
lish), where  we  regularly  obscure  final  unaccented 
syllables  in  pronunciation.  One  or  two  illustrations  will 
suffice  to  make  this  point  clear.  In  Old  English  a  noun 
in  the  nominative  singular  might  end  in  -a,  as  huntat 
u  hunter "  ;  or  -e,  as  tunge,  "  tongue  " ;  or  -u,  as  sunut 
"  son  "  ;  or  -0,  as  wlenco,  "  pride."  Now  these  various 
endings  were  all  given  distinctly  and  clearly  the  values 
of  the  vowels  -a,  -e^  -u,  and  -0,  and  were  not  obscured 
and  slurred  as  they  would  be  in  our  Modern  English 
pronunciation.  The  same  principle  holds  true  when  the 
inflectional  syllable  consists  of  a  vowel  followed  by  a 
consonant  or  consonants.  The  noun  stan,  "  stone,"  has 
a  genitive  singular  stanes  and  a  nominative  and  accusa- 
tive plural  stanas,  each  of  which  is  clearly  distinguished 
by  the  value  of  its  vowel.  In  short,  we  may  say  that  the 
inflectional  ending  was  treated  with  a  great  deal  more 
respect  and  consideration  in  the  Old  English  period 
than  in  later  periods.  There  was  more  feeling  for  it 
and  consequently  a  stronger  tendency  making  for  its 
preservation. 

The  tendency  which  kept  the  vowels  of  the  inflec- 
tional syllables  full  and  clear,  served  naturally  to  pre- 
vent the  loss  of  inflectional  endings.  The  extent  of 
inflection  in  the  Old  English  period  may  be  briefly  indi- 
cated, choosing  for  this  purpose  the  West  Saxon  dialect 
in  the  early  West  Saxon  period,  that  is,  English  between 
the  years  800  and  900,  in  the  central  and  southern  parts 
of  England.  The  noun  inflected  for  three  genders, 
masculine,  feminine,  and  neuter,  and  gender  in  Old 


64  MODERN  ENGLISH 

English,  as  in  Modern  German  or  Latin,  was  still  gram- 
matical, not  natural  or  logical,  as  it  has  become  in 
Modern  English.  That  is,  gender  in  Old  English  refers 
to  the  way  in  which  a  noun  is  inflected,  not  necessarily 
to  the  sex  of  the  person  or  object  designated  by  the  noun. 
Thus  Old  English  nouns  ending  in  -a  are  masculines,  and 
this  includes  such  names  of  inanimate  objects  as  mono,, 
"  moon  "  ;  noma,  "  name  "  ;  steorra,  "  star." l  The  noun 
inflected  also  for  two  numbers,  singular  and  plural.  It 
inflected  for  five  cases,  nominative,  genitive  (from  which 
is  derived  the  modern  possessive),  dative  (lost  in  Modern 
English),  accusative  (the  modern  objective),  and  instru- 
mental (also  lost  in  Modern  English).  Furthermore  it 
inflected  for  class  or  type  of  declension,  there  being  two 
main  types  of  noun  declension,  the  strong  and  the  weak, 
and  each  of  these  classes  consisted  of  several  sub-types 
or  classes.  The  somewhat  complicated  state  of  affairs 
may  be  best  represented  by  the  following  table  of  the 
different  inflectional  endings  which  the  nouns  of  the 
various  genders  and  types  may  take.  Words  which 
appeared  in  certain  cases  without  any  inflectional  end- 
ing are  indicated  merely  by  the  dash.  Since  the  in- 

1  The  distinction  between  the  grammatical  gender  of  Old  English, 
based  upon  the  forms  of  words,  and  the  natural  gender  of  Modern 
English,  based  upon  the  meanings  of  words,  should  be  clearly  appre- 
hended. In  Old  English,  adjectives  have  gender  as  well  as  nouns,  since 
they  are  inflected  in  forms  to  agree  with  their  nouns.  With  the  loss  of 
inflections,  Modern  English  has  given  up  the  distinctions  of  grammatical 
gender,  and  uses  the  term  now  for  the  much  simpler  and  more  natural 
purpose  of  indicating  sex.  This  explains  why  Englishmen  often  find  it 
difficult  to  understand  why  the  possessive  pronoun  must  be  feminine  in  a 
French  sentence  like  11  a  perdu  safemme,  "  He  has  lost  his  wife."  But  the 
possessive  sa  is  an  adjective,  and  as  such  it  must  take  the  feminine  form 
when  it  modifies  a  feminine  noun,  no  matter  what  its  antecedent  may  be, 
or  what  its  logical  meaning  may  be. 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  65 

strumental  is  always  the  same  as  the  dative  in  the 
noun,  it  is  not  mentioned  specifically  in  the  table. 

SINGULAR.  PLTJBAL. 

Nominative  -,  -u,   -a,    -e,    -o.  Nominative  -,  -as,  -u,  -a,  -e,  -an. 

Genitive  -es,  -e,     -an.  Genitive          -a,      -ena. 

Dative          -,  -e,   -an,  -o.  Dative  -urn. 

Accusative    -,  -e,  -an,  -o.  Accusative  same  as  the  nominative. 

An  examination  of  this  table  will  show  that  the  inflec- 
tional system  of  the  Old  English  noun  is  not  distinctive 
for  all  uses,  that  the  same  ending  has  sometimes  to  do 
duty  for  various  values  of  the  noun.  Thus  the  ending 
-e  may  appear  in  any  case  of  the  singular,  or  in  the  nomi- 
native or  accusative  plural ;  and  there  are  other  endings 
also  which  have  to  be  used  several  times,  the  ending  -an, 
for  example,  being  used  five  times.  The  most  distinc- 
tive and  characteristic  endings  are  the  -es  of  the  genitive 
singular,  which  appears  only  in  the  genitive  singular; 
-a«,  which  appears  only  in  the  nominative  and  accusa- 
tive plural ;  and  -um,  which  is  always  the  ending  of  all 
nouns  in  the  dative  plural.  It  will  be  seen  later  that 
these  endings  are  just  the  ones  that  are  important  in  the 
further  development  of  the  inflectional  system.  The  de- 
clension of  the  strong  masculine  noun  stdn,  "  stone  " ;  the 
strong  feminine  noun  lar,  "  lore,  learning  " ;  the  strong 
neuter  noun  hof, "  court " ;  and  the  weak  masculine  noun 
steorra,  "star";  and  the  weak  feminine  noun  tunge, 
"  tongue,"  may  be  cited  in  illustration  of  the  declension 
of  five  large  groups  of  Old  English  nouns,  altho  these 
five  are  not  exhaustive  of  all  the  different  Old  Eng- 
lish declensions.  The  declensions  of  stdn  and  steorra 
are  typical  of  by  far  the  greatest  number  of  nouns  in 
Old  English. 


66 


MODERN  ENGLISH 


Neu. 


SlXOULAB. 

Masculine.  Fern. 

Nominative     stan        lar  hof 

Genitive          stanes    lare  hofes 

Dative  stane     lare  hofe 

Accusative      stan      lare  hof 


STRONG. 

PLURAL. 

Masculine.    Fern. 


Neu. 

stan  as     lare  hofu 

stan  a      lara  or  larena  ho  fa 
stanum  larum  hofurr 

stan  as    lare  hofu 


WEAK. 


SINGULAR. 

Masculine. 

Feminine. 

Nominative 

steorra 

tunge 

Genitive 

steorran 

tungan 

Dative 

steorran 

tungan 

Accusative 

steorran 

tungan 

PLURAL. 

Masculine. 

Feminine. 

steorran 

tungan 

steorrena 

tungena 

steorrum 

tungum 

steorran 

tungan 

There  are  various  minor  declensions  of  the  noun  in 
Old  English  besides  the  above  five  types,  but  most  of  these 
have  been  more  or  less  completely  assimilated  in  later 
English  to  the  type  forms  represented  by  stdn  and 
steorra.  Only  one  has  left  considerable  traces  in 
Modern  English,  nouns  in  which  the  plural  number  was 
formed  by  mutation  of  the  radical  vowel.  For  example, 
Old  English /<?£,  gas,  mils,  broc,  etc.,  formed  their  plurals 
fet,  ges,  mys,  brek,  corresponding  to  Modern  English 
foot,  feet ;  goose,  geese;  mouse,  mice.  The  word  broc  has 
disappeared  in  the  singular  in  Modern  English,  which 
should  have  brook;  its  plural  is  retained,  however,  in 
breeches,  which  has  the  old  mutation  of  the  vowel  to 
indicate  the  plural,  but  which  has  also  added  the  regular 
plural  -s  ending  of  nouns  like  stan.  Some  other  words 
which  in  Old  English  belong  to  this  class  of  mutation 
plurals  have  been  attracted  completely  into  the  larger 
class  of  regular  nouns.  Thus  Old  English  bdc,  bee 
should  give  regularly  Modern  English  book,  with  the 
plural  beek,  like  goose,  geese.  But  by  analogy  to  the 


ENGLISH   INFLECTIONS  67 

large  class  of  plurals  in  -s  without  mutation  of  the  vowel, 
beek  was  changed  to  books. 

The  Old  English  adjective  differs  from  the  Modern 
English  adjective  in  that  it  inflects  for  all  those  forms 
for  which  the  noun  inflects,  for  gender,  number,  case,  and 
type  or  class,  as  strong  and  weak.  The  rules  of  concord 
also  demand  that  an  adjective  shall  agree  in  its  inflection 
with  the  gender,  number,  and  case  of  the  noun  which  it 
modifies.  The  main  inflections  of  the  adjective,  for  all 
genders  and  types,  are  as  follows : 

SIICQULAB.  PLVBAL. 

Nominative  -,        -a,  -e.  Nominative  -,        -e,       -a,  -an. 

Genitive        -es,     -re,  -an.  Genitive       -ra,     -ena. 

Dative          -urn,  -re,  -an.  Dative          -um. 

Accusative    -,        -ne,  -e,    -an.  Accusative  same  as  the  nominative. 

With  the  adjective  should  be  grouped  the  definite 
article,  for  this  part  of  speech  in  Old  English  is  a  real 
adjective,  inflecting  like  the  adjective  and  like  the 
Modern  German  article,  for  gender,  number,  and  case. 
The  inflections  of  the  article  are  as  follows  : 

BINOULAB.  PLURAL. 

Masculine.  Feminine.  Neuter.  Masculine.  Feminine.  Nenttr. 


Nominative  se,       "the"        seo       paet1  pa 

Genitive  paes,    "of  the"  paere    pass  para 

Dative  pasm,  "  to  the  "  psere     psem  pirn 

Accusative  pone,  "the"       pa        pat  )>a 

Instrumental  py,  "  by  or  with  the  "... 

1  The  symbol  p,  also  written  S,  (called  "  thorn  ")  is  equivalent  to  th ;  the 
symbol  ce  (called  the  digrapb )  has  the  sound  of  Modern  English  a  in  hat, 
the  value  of  Old  English  a,  as  for  example  in  stdn,  being  the  same  as  the 
a  in  Modern  English  father. 


68 


MODERN  ENGLISH 


The  Old  English  personal  pronoun  differs  mainly  from 
the  Modern  English  in  that  it  has  preserved  remnants 
of  an  old  dual  number,  the  only  survival  in  any  period 
of  English  of  an  inflection  which  probably,  in  prehistoric 
stages  of  the  language,  appeared  also  in  the  noun,  the 
adjective,  and  the  verb;  and  secondly,  in  that  it  has 
only  one  form  for  the  second  person,  3w,  Modern  Eng- 
lish "thou,"  with  its  various  case  forms.  The  dual 
number  survives  only  in  the  personal  pronoun  of  the 
first  and  second  persons.  The  inflections  of  the  Old 
English  personal  pronoun,  followed  in  each  case  by  its 
Modern  English  derivative  or  equivalent  when  it  has 
one,  are  as  follows: 


FIBST  PERSON  SINGULAR. 

Nominative  ic,      "I " 
Genitive       mm,  "  mine  " 
Dative          me,    "  me  " 
Accusative   me,    "me" 


SECOND  PERSON  SINGULAR. 


Nominative  %u, 
Genitive  flin, 
Dative  fle, 
Accusative  "Se, 


"thou" 
"  thine ' 
"thee" 
"tfiee" 


DUAL. 

Nominative 
Genitive 
Dative 
Accusative 

PLURAL. 


wit 
uncer 
unc 
unc 


DUAL. 

Nominative 
Genitive 
Dative 
Accusative 


Nominative 
'lenitive 


Accusative 


we,        "we" 
lire,  or  user,  "  our : 
us,         "us" 
us,         "us" 


git 
incer 
inc 
inc 

PLURAL. 

Nominative    ge, 


Genitive 

Dative 

Accusative 


THIRD  PERSON  SINGULAR. 
Masculine.  Feminine. 

Nominative  he,      "  he "  heo,  "  she " 

Genitive  his,     "his"  hiere,  "her" 

Dative  him,   "him"  hiere,  "her" 

Accusative  hine,  "him"  hie,  "her" 


«ye» 
eower,  "your" 
eow,      "you" 
eow,      "  you  " 

Neuter. 
hit,     "it* 
his,    "its'1 
him,  «  it " 
hit,    "if 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  69 

PLURAL. 

Mas.    Fern.    Neu. 

Nominative  hi,  or  hie,  "they** 

Genitive  hiera,  "their" 

Dative  him,  "them" 

Accusative  hi,  or  hie,  "them" 

These  forms  of  the  personal  pronouns  were  simplified 
in  several  ways  in  the  Middle  English  period.  In  the 
first  place  the  dual  forms  disappeared,  and  with  them 
the  last  traces  of  the  dual  number  in  English.  The 
form  ic,  since  it  generally  stood  in  unstressed  position, 
tended  to  assume  a  weakened  form,  which  later  became 
conventionalized  in  spelling  as  capital  I. 1  The  genitives 
mm,  Sm,  persisted  as  mine,  thine,  but  there  also  devel- 
oped forms  without  final  -n,  that  is,  my,  thy,  which  were 
used  before  words  beginning  with  a  consonant,  the  full 
forms  being  used  before  vowels  and  in  the  absolute  po- 
sition. The  dative  and  accusative  fell  together  under 

1  The  use  of  the  capital  for  the  pronoun  of  the  first  person,  nominative 
case,  in  English,  a  custom  not  shared  by  any  other  European  language 
(cf.  German  ich,  French  je,  Italian  to,  Spanish  yo),  is  due  to  purely  me- 
chanical reasons,  and  not,  as  it  is  sometimes  invidiously  said,  to  the  ego- 
tism of  the  English  people.  The  custom  arose  in  the  late  Middle  English 
period,  when  in  order  to  distinguish  the  letter  t  in  cursive  writing,  which 
as  a  single  stroke  of  the  pen  might  easily  he  mistaken  as  part  of  another 
letter,  it  was  commonly  written  as  J  or  I.  The  origin  of  the  period  over 
i  is  the  same ;  the  period  was  used  to  indicate  that  this  stroke  of  the  pen 
over  which  it  stood  was  the  letter  i,  and  not  merely  a  preliminary  stroke  to 
some  other  letter.  It  was  thus  originally  a  mechanical  device  similar  to 
that  now  in  use  in  printing  offices,  where  in  manuscripts  a  stroke  is  placed 
over  an  n,  i.  e.  n,  and  under  a  u,  i.  e.  u,  in  order  to  prevent  mistaking  one 
for  the  other.  With  the  invention  of  printing,  the  form  I  was  carried 
over  from  writing  as  the  symbol  for  the  letter  when  standing  alone,  al- 
tho  in  the  early  days  of  printing  both  the  capital  and  the  small  letter 
were  thus  used.  Gradually,  however,  with  the  establishment  of  fixed  con« 
ventions  in  printing  and  writing,  the  capital  letter  came  to  be  the  only 
recognized  form  for  this  purpose.  For  the  importance  of  •tress  aa  affect* 
ing  the  development  of  a  sound,  see  below,  pp.  142-148. 


70  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  forms  me,  thee,  us,  and  you.  Like  the  first  person 
singular,  because  it  was  in  the  unstressed  position,  Old 
English  us  developed  a  weak  form  with  short  vowel, 
Modern  English  us,  although  regularly  u  should  give 
ou  (cf.  Old  English  hils,  Mod.  Eng.  house,  etc.).  The 
forms  of  the  third  person  were  variously  modified.  The 
dative  and  accusative  singular  were  simplified  under 
one  form,  for  the  masculine  him,  the  old  dative,  for  the 
feminine  her,  likewise  the  old  dative.  The  neuter  dative- 
accusative  form  became  hit,  "  it,"  the  old  accusative,  the 
old  dative,  him,  not  being  used  here  as  the  dative  was  in 
the  masculine  and  feminine  because  of  its  identity  with 
the  masculine  form.  The  genitive  singular  of  the  neuter. 
his,  was  also  gradually  discarded  because  of  its  identity 
TTith  the  genitive  singular  of  the  masculine,  and  in  its 
place  was  developed  a  new  genitive  singular  neuter 
formed  by  adding  the  regular  -s  ending  of  genitives  to 
the  uninflected  form  of  the  nominative.  In  all  these 
developments  it  will  be  seen  that  the  tendency  was 
towards  a  limitation  of  the  number,  but  also  towards  a 
stricter  definition  of  the  value  of  forms.  Old  English 
permitted  identity  of  forms  in  different  grammatical  cat- 
egories, his,  for  example,  for  both  masculine  and  neuter 
genitive;  but  the  tendency,  at  least,  of  later  English 
development  has  been  in  the  direction  of  a  single  form 
lor  each  grammatical  category.  This  tendency  was 
helped  in  the  present  instance  by  the  change  from  gram- 
matical to  logical  gender.  So  long  as  gender  was  a 
purely  grammatical  distinction,  as  in  Old  English,  one 
might  use  the  same  form  for  masculine  and  neuter;  but 
when  gender  came  to  mean  a  real  difference  in  the  nature 
of  the  objects  designated,  as  in  Modern  English,  it  was 


ENGLISH   INFLECTIONS  71 

obviously  necessary  to  have  distinctive  forms  for  the 
different  genders.  The  plural  forms  did  not  persist 
because  of  their  similarity  in  form  to  singulars,  hi  of 
the  plural  not  being  readily  distinguishable  from  he  of 
the  singular,  hiera  from  hiere,  "her,"  and  him  being 
identical  in  singular  and  plural.  For  the  Old  English 
forms  were  consequently  substituted  the  forms  they, 
their,  them,  probably  under  the  influence  of  the  Scan- 
dinavian forms,  which  begin  with  th,  and  perhaps  also 
partly  out  of  recollection  of  the  plural  forms  of  the  defi- 
nite article,  which  also  begin  with  th.  The  first  person 
singular  of  the  feminine  became  she,  in  which  there  is 
probably  to  be  seen  an  amalgamation  of  the  Old  English 
feminine  article  seo  with  the  pronoun  heo,  which  might 
otherwise  have  been  confused  with  the  masculine  he. 

The  adverb  in  Old  English  does  not  differ  greatly  from 
its  use  in  Middle  and  in  Modern  English,  in  all  three 
stages  of  the  language  being  susceptible  of  inflection 
only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  degrees  of  comparison. 
Various  inflections,  however,  which  were  lost  in  later 
English,  were  used  in  Old  English  with  the  power  of 
forming  adverbs.  Thus  the  dative  singular  ending  -e, 
added  to  an  adjective  formed  an  adverb,  e.  g.,  soft,  ad- 
jective, softe,  adverb ;  the  dative  plural  ending  was  simi- 
larly used,  e.  g.,  hwil,  "  time,"  Modern  English  "  while," 
with  the  dative  plural  inflection,  hwilum,  was  used  with 
sense  of  Modern  English  "at  times,"  "from  time  to 
time."  The  genitive  singular  ending  -es  also  often  had 
adverbial  value,  as  in  dceg,  "day,"  dceges,  "by  day." 
With  the  gradual  disappearance  of  inflections,  these 
inflectional  adverbs  ceased  to  be  used,  their  place  being 
taken  largely  by  the  compositional  adverb  with  -ly< 


72  MODERN  ENGLISH 

The  adverb  in  -ww  persists,  however,  in  the  archaic  form 
"  whilom  " ;  the  -es  adverb  of  genitive  origin  is  not  now 
distinguishable  from  the  plural  form.  But  in  construc- 
tions like  "  Evenings  is  the  best  time  to  see  him,"  the 
word  "  evenings  "  is  a  direct  survival  of  the  old  genitive 
adverb  construction.  With  the  loss  of  final  inflectional 
-e,  adverbs  like  softe  could  no  longer  be  distinguished 
from  the  adjective  form  soft.  This  type  of  adverb 
formation  also  persists  in  Modern  English  in  adverbs 
without  ending,  as  in  constructions  like  "  Go  slow " ; 
"He  fought  hard,  but  there  was  no  hope  for  him"; 
and  very  commonly  in  Biblical  and  poetic  English  in 
phrases  like  "  exceeding  glad,"  "  the  sun  shone  cold 
upon  the  earth." 

The  inflection  of  the  Old  English  verb  differs  from 
that  of  the  Modern  English  verb  only  in  having  a  larger 
number  of  specific  forms  for  the  various  persons,  tenses, 
etc.  There  was  considerable  variety  among  the  dialects 
of  Old  English  in  their  treatment  of  the  inflections  of 
the  verb,  the  most  conservative  dialect  being  the  West 
Saxon,  which  is  made  the  basis  of  this  description.  In 
Old  English,  verbs  are  classified  as  weak,  the  Modern 
English  regular  verbs,  and  strong,  the  Modern  English 
irregular  verbs  (see  above  Chapter  III,  §  4).  Besides, 
they  inflect  for  the  three  persons ;  for  two  numbers ;  for 
three  moods,  indicative,  imperative,  and  optative  or  sub- 
junctive, the  last  mood  being  used  much  more  exten- 
sively in  Old  English  than  it  is  in  Modern  English ;  for 
the  formation  of  the  verbals,  the  participle  and  the  infin- 
itive ;  and  for  two  tenses,  the  present  and  the  past  or 
preterite.  The  forms  of  the  present  tense  are  also 
used  with  the  value  of  the  future,  and  besides  the 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  73 

simple  inflectional  tenses,  as  in  Modern  English,  there 
are  a  number  of  phrasal  verbs,  formed  with  the  auxili- 
aries habban,  "  have,"  sculan,  "  shall,"  willan,  "will,"  beon, 
"be,"  etc.,  joined  to  the  infinitive  of  the  main  verb. 
Old  English,  like  Modern  English,  has  no  real  inflec- 
tional passive,  but  only  a  compound  or  phrasal  passive, 
formed  with  the  help  of  the  verb  beon,  "be,"  "was," 
etc.,  joined  to  the  past  participle  of  the  verb.  The  in- 
finitive ends  usually  in  -an,  singan,  "  to  sing,"  but  occa- 
sionally also  in  ~ian,  endian,  "  to  end."  The  preposition 
"  to  "  is  not  used  in  Old  English  merely  as  the  sign  of 
the  infinitive,  as  in  Modern  English,  but  when  used  it  is 
followed  by  the  inflected  form  of  the  infinitive,  in  the 
dative  case,  the  whole  being  virtually  a  prepositional 
phrase  indicating  purpose,  e.  g.,  to  singanne,  "for  the 
purpose  of  singing,"  to  endianne,  "in  order  to  end." 
The  present  participle  ends  in  -ende,  singende  ;  the  past 
participle  of  the  strong  verb  ends  in  -en,  sungen,  tf  sung," 
of  the  weak  verb  in  -ed,  -od,  frequently  carrying  also 
the  prefix  ge-,  e.  g.,  ge-fylled, "  filled,"  ge-endod,  "  ended." 
The  personal  endings  are  few  in  number.  For  the  pres- 
ent tense  indicative  singular  they  are  -e,  -est,  -eft :  ic  singe, 
ftu  singest,  he  singefi.  All  persons  of  the  plural  end  in 
-aft  :  we,  ge,  hie  singaft.  But  most  verbs,  whose  infini- 
tives end  in  -ian,  have  -aS  in  the  third  person  singular, 
and  -iaft  in  all  persons  of  the  plural.  In  the  optative  or 
subjunctive  all  singulars  end  in  -e  and  all  plurals  in  -en. 
In  the  past  tense  the  first  and  third  persons  of  strong 
verbs  have  no  endings :  ic  sang,  he  sang  ;  but  the  second 
person  has  the  ending  -e,  and  likewise  in  the  root  of 
the  word  takes  over  the  radical  vowel  of  the  plural,  ftu 
mnge.  The  plural  has  the  ending  -on  for  all  persons,  we, 


74  MODERN  ENGLISH 

ge.  Me  sungon.  In  the  weak  verb  the  second  person 
singular  of  the  past  tense  has  the  -est  ending  of  the  pres- 
ent, Sw  fylledest;  the  first  and  third  are  ic  fyllede,  he 
fyllede,  and  the  plural  we,  ge,  hie  fylledon.  The  subjunc- 
tive forms  are  the  same  for  the  past  as  for  the  present,  -e 
for  the  singular,  and  -en  for  the  plural.  The  only  other 
forms  which  need  be  noted  are  those  of  the  imperative, 
which  appear  in  the  singular  either  without  ending  or 
with  the  endings  -e  or  -a,  and  in  the  plural  with  the  end- 
ing -aS,  or  -ia%. 

4.  The  Inflections  of  the  Middle  English  Period. 
The  language  of  the  Middle  English  period  underwent  a 
great  number  of  changes,  affecting  not  only  inflections, 
but  also  vocabulary,  sounds,  and  the  whole  structure  of 
the  language.  The  causes  of  this  development,  this 
thorogoing  reconstruction  of  the  language,  are  very 
complex.  So  far  as  inflections  go,  however,  one  of  the 
main  causes  was  pretty  certainly  a  change  in  the  way 
words  were  accented  in  the  Middle  English  period.  The 
only  kind  of  word  stress  which  could  have  preserved  the 
full  inflectional  endings  of  the  Old  English  period  is  a 
general  or  distributed  stress,  spread  over  the  word  as  a 
whole.  But  in  the  Middle  English  period  apparently 
the  stress  of  words  began  to  become  more  like  that  of 
Modern  English,  to  be  placed  strongly  and  heavily  on 
the  first  syllables  of  words,  with  a  consequent  obscuring 
and  weakening  of  the  later  syllables  of  the  words.  A 
second  main  cause  of  inflectional  change  in  the  Middle 
English  period  was  the  condition  of  general  social  and 
political  unrest  which  accompanied  the  period  of  the 
Danish  Conquest,  and,  a  little  later,  the  Norman  Con- 
quest. The  result  of  these  two  conquests  was  the 


ENGLISH   INFLECTIONS  75 

complete  overthrow  of  the  English  social  and  political 
system.  For  a  period  of  several  generations  there  was  a 
time  of  great  confusion ;  the  standards,  the  traditional 
rules  and  habits  of  the  English  people  of  Britain,  in 
speech  and  in  other  matters,  were  forgotten  arid  broken 
down.  The  result  was  that  the  constraints  of  a  rigid 
social  custom,  of  conventional  education  and  good  breed- 
ing, being  to  a  considerable  extent  removed,  the  language 
was  allowed  to  develop  in  an  untrammeled  and  popular 
way.  The  usages  of  the  radical,  the  ignorant,  and  un- 
educated part  of  the  people  were  not  held  in  check  and 
the  result  was  that  when  English  began  to  reassert  itself, 
it  was  no  longer  the  English  of  the  Old  English  period, 
but  an  English  that  had  been  modified  by  passing 
through  a  period  of  popular  and  natural  development. 
The  situation  was  very  much  as  tho  what  we  now 
call  "  good  English  "  should  for  some  reason  or  other  be 
given  up,  say  as  a  result  of  a  Japanese  conquest  of 
America.  For  a  time  Japanese  would  have  the  upper 
hand.  Americans  would  all  try  to  learn  Japanese,  to 
talk  Japanese,  to  act  like  Japanese,  because  the  Japa- 
nese would  give  tone  to  everything  and  would  be  the  con- 
trolling power  in  the  country.  English  would  no  longer 
be  taught  in  the  school  or  the  home,  and  the  only  persons 
who  would  use  English  would  be  the  populace,  who 
would  not  of  course  come  into  close  contact  with  the 
new  ruling  civilization  of  the  country.  They  would 
speak  their  natural  speech,  the  English  of  the  people, 
and  the  old  "  good  English  "  would  become  extinct  and 
would  be  crowded  out  by  the  "incorrect  English"  of 
the  uneducated  and  heedless  part  of  the  population.  All 
who  spoke  English  at  all  might  thqn  say  "You  was/' 


76  MODERN  ENGLISH 

instead  of  "  You  were  " ;  "  He  ain't,"  instead  of  "  He 
isn't";  perhaps  "  He  done  it,"  instead  of,  "  He  did 
it " ;  and  a  thousand  similar  uses  which  are  now  held 
in  check  by  the  standards  of  careful  English  would  be- 
come general.  For  a  time,  then,  we  should  all  together 
be  "uneducated"  and  "popular."  But  suppose  now 
that  after  several  generations  this  Japanese  invasion  and 
the  prestige  of  things  Japanese  should  pass  over,  and  that 
English  should  begin  to  reassert  itself.  Soon  the  educa- 
tive and  conservative  instinct  would  set  to  work.  The 
more  thoughtful  part  of  the  people  would  again  con- 
struct a  system  of  the  language,  and  again  we  should 
have  rules  of  grammar,  a  correct  speech,  at  the  side  of 
an  incorrect  one.  But  the  new  correct  speech  would  be 
based  simply  upon  the  usage  of  the  people  of  tliis  later 
generation,  and  consequently  it  would  contain  much  that 
the  earlier  generation  regarded  as  incorrect.  After  the 
language  had  passed  through  the  popular  stage  and  had 
emerged  again  into  a  cultivated  stage,  "  You  was,"  "  He 
ain't,"  and  "  He  done  it "  might  very  well  be  the  only 
possible  correct  forms.  This,  as  has  been  said,  is  what 
happened  in  the  Middle  English  period.  The  old  stand- 
ards of  conventional  propriety  and  correctness  were  more 
or  less  forgotten,  the  language  followed  the  free  and  un- 
regulated impulses  of  the  people,  and  consequently  when 
it  rose  again  to  the  position  of  a  stable  and  classical  lit- 
erary language  in  the  time  of  Chaucer  and  his  predeces- 
sors, it  was  a  very  different  language  from  what  it  had 
been  in  the  time  of  Alfred  and  .^Elfric.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary, however,  or  even  reasonable,  to  regard  the  language 
of  the  Middle  English  period  as  a  corrupt  and  degener- 
ate form  of  Old  English,  for  these  terms  suppose  that 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  77 

the  language  of  the  later  period  is  less  admirable  and 
effective  than  that  of  the  earlier.  It  is  better  to  speak 
of  it  as  a  development  from,  or  an  evolution  out  of,  Old 
English.  For  it  does  not  follow  that  the  popular  dialect 
of  a  language  is  any  less  capable  of  doing  all  that  lan- 
guage is  expected  to  do  than  the  conventional  "  correct" 
speech.  It  often  happens  that  it  is  more  capable,  and 
one  of  the  main  sources  of  strength  in  the  English  lan- 
guage is  the  frequency  and  the  ease  with  which  it  renews 
its  vigor  by  drawing  from  the  living  and  ever-flowing 
well  of  popular  speech. 

The  inflections  of  the  Middle  English  period  are 
largely  the  inflections  of  the  Old  English  period  in  a 
disappearing  stage.  Owing  to  that  change  in  word  ac- 
cent which  has  just  been  mentioned,  the  final  syllables 
of  words,  especially  inflectional  syllables,  tended  to  be- 
come weak  and  indistinct  in  pronunciation.  This  tend- 
ency is  already  apparent  in  the  late  Old  English  period, 
manifesting  itself  first  in  the  ending  -um  of  the  dative 
plural  of  nouns  and  of  adjectives,  in  the  time  of  ^Elfric. 
This  ending  gradually  became  vague  and  uncertain, 
appearing  in  the  various  forms  -ww,  -on,  -en,  -an,  the  last 
form  becoming  the  predominating  one  by  the  end  of 
the  Old  English  period.  The  most  important  inflec- 
tional development,  however,  of  the  early  Middle  Eng- 
lish period  consisted  in  the  leveling  of  all  unstressed 
end  vowels  under  the  vowel  -e  (pronounced  like  the 
second  syllable  of  "sooner,"  with  the  r  silent,  i.  e., 
"  soon-uh").  The  effect  of  this  change  upon  the  inflec- 
tional system  of  the  noun,  for  example,  will  be  seen  by 
substituting  this  vowel  -e  for  the  various  vowels  given 
in  the  table  of  noun  endings  in  §  3.  The  result  would 


78  MODERN   ENGLISH 

be  the  following  scheme  of  noun  inflections  in  Middle 
English : 

SINGULAR.  PLUBAL. 

Nominative  -,  -e.  Nominative  -,     -e,      -es,    -en. 

Genitive  -e,  -es,  -en.  Genitive  -e,   -ene. 

Dative  -,  -e,  -en.  Dative  -en. 

Accusative  -,  -e,  -en.  Accusative  -,     -e,      -es,    -en. 

Several  important  consequences  followed  this  leveling 
of  the  distinctive  Old  English  vowel  endings  under  the 
vowel  -e.  In  the  first  place,  the  grouping  of  the  nouns 
into  classes,  or  types,  of  declension  had  largely  to  be 
given  up,  for  the  principle  of  this  classification  was  the 
difference  in  vowel  ending.  The  two  classes  which  re- 
mained were  the  class  of  the  strong  and  weak  nouns,  the 
strong  nouns  being  those  that  formed  their  genitive  sin- 
gular and  nominative  and  accusative  plurals  in  -es,  the 
weak  nouns  those  that  used  the  ending  -en  for  these  and 
other  forms.  Moreover,  with  the  breaking  down  of  the 
different  classes  of  declension  passed  away  also  gram- 
matical gender.  All  inflections  being  leveled  under 
the  general  inflections  -e,  -es,  -en,  there  was  no  longer 
any  reason,  or  indeed  any  means,  for  keeping  up  the  dis- 
tinctions of  grammatical  gender,  and  words  were  used  as 
they  are  in  Modern  English,  without  gender,  except  in 
so  far  as  they  state,  by  their  logical  meaning,  the  sex  of 
the  objects  which  they  designate.  The  inflection  of  a 
typical  strong  noun  in  Middle  English  is  that  of  ston 
(the  vowel  a  having  changed  to  o  in  the  Middle  English 
period),  of  a  typical  weak  noun,  that  of  sterre,  "  star," 
in  the  following  paradigms ;  letters  which  are  enclosed 
within  parentheses  are  such  as  are  sometimes  dropped 


ENGLISH   INFLECTIONS  79 

in  the  early  Middle  English  period  and  are  altogether 
dropped  in  the  later  Middle  English  period. 

SnrouLAR.  SINGULAB. 

Nominative  ston  Nominative  sterre 

Genitive  stones  Genitive  sterre  (n) 

Dative  ston(e)  Dative  sterre  (n) 

Accusative  ston  Accusative  sterre(n) 

PLURAL.  FLUBAL. 

Nominative  stones  Nominative  sterren 

Genitive  ston(en)e,  stones  Genitive  sterr(en)e 

Dative  stonen,  stones  Dative  sterren 

Accusative  stones  Accusative  sterren 

The  tendency  of  all  nouns  was  to  fall  into  these  two 
groups,  the  ston-stones  group,  and  the  sterre-sterren  group. 
The  ston-stones  group,  as  the  more  numerous  group, 
tended  to  impose  itself  upon  the  sterre-sterren  group,  so 
that  besides  these  forms  and  contemporary  with  them 
are  often  found  the  forms  sterre,  sterres. 

The  loss  of  grammatical  gender  in  the  noun  naturally 
led  to  the  loss  of  agreement  in  inflection  between  the 
noun  and  its  adjective,  so  far  as  gender  is  concerned. 
The  same  leveling  of  inflectional  endings  took  place  in 
the  adjective  as  in  the  noun ;  the  only  one  which  per- 
sisted after  the  loss  of  those  indicative  of  gender  was 
the  vowel  -e,  which  served  to  mark  the  plural  number 
and  the  weak  inflection  of  the  adjective.  The  inflection 
of  the  Middle  English  adjective  god,  "good,"  would, 
therefore,  be  as  follows: 

STBOWO.  WEAK. 

Singular,  all  cases  and  genders,  Singular,  all  cases  and  genders, 

god.  gode. 

Plural,   all  cases  and  genders,  Plural,  all  cases  and  genders, 

yode.  (/ode. 


80  MODERN  ENGLISH 

An  example  of  a  strong  singular  would  be  the  phrase 
A  yong  Squyer  (from  Chaucer's  Prolog  to  The  Canter- 
bury Tales,  1.  79) ;  a  strong  plural  would  be  and  smale 
fowles  (ibid.,  1.  9 ;  it  should  be  remembered  that  every 
vowel  is  pronounced  in  Middle  English) ;  a  weak  singu- 
lar is  the  phrase  The  yonge  sonne,  and  a  weak  plural,  the 
phrase  The  tendre  croppes  (both  ibid.,  1.  7). 

In  the  case  of  the  definite  article,  the  forms  with  ini- 
tial 8,  that  is  se  and  seo,  gave  up  this  s  for  J>  (th),  by  anal- 
ogy to  the  majority  of  the  forms  of  the  article,  which  begin 
with  ]?.  This  gave  for  the  nominative  singular  forms  ]>et 
]>eo,  ]>cet.  But  by  a  regular  phonetic  development,  the 
vowel  of  Ipeo  became  the  same  as  that  of  J>e,  and  with  the 
loss  of  grammatical  gender  in  the  noun,  the  separate 
neuter  form  ]>cet  was  given  up  as  an  article,  its  place  being 
taken  by  the  form  ]>e  of  the  masculine  and  feminine ;  no 
longer  needed  as  an  article,  the  form  ]>cet  itself  per- 
sisted with  changed  value  as  a  demonstrative  pronoun. 
Having  gone  as  far  as  this,  ajialogy  then  operated  still 
further,  and  there  being  little  need  felt  for  inflecting 
the  article  in  the  other  cases  and  for  gender,  since  it  was 
readily  assumed  that  the  article  was  of  the  same  case  and 
gender  as  the  noun  with  which  it  went,  the  single  fixed 
form  ]>e  (the)  established  itself  for  all  genders,  numbers, 
and  cases  of  the  article.  The  main  principle,  therefore, 
which  operated  in  the  simplification  of  the  definite  arti- 
cle is  that  of  substitution,  one  single  type  form  crowding 
out  all  the  dozen  or  more  inflections  of  the  Old  English 
article. 

Inflection  of  the  verb  as  strong  and  weak,  or  irregular 
and  regular,  persisted  in  the  Middle  English  period,  but 
from  early  Middle  English  times  there  was  a  tendency 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  CHAUCER'S  "PARDONER'S  TALE." 

From  Cambridge  University  Library  MS.  G.  G.  4.  27,  folio  306. 

(For  description,  see  Appendix.) 


82  MODERN  ENGLISH 

on  the  part  of  strong  verbs  to  become  weak,  for  example, 
Old  English  wepan,  weopy  beside  Middle  English  wepen, 
wepte,  "  weep,"  "  wept."  This  tendency,  which  was  de- 
veloped still  further  in  the  Modern  English  period,  and 
which  is  still  operative,  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
weak  verbs  were  the  more  numerous,  as  well  as  being 
the  simpler  and  more  readily  apprehended  manner  of 
tense  formation.  The  weak  verbs  thus  tended  to  become 
the  type  form,  crowding  out  by  analogy  to  them  many 
old  strong  verbs  and  attracting  to  their  class  all  new 
verbs  that  entered  the  language.  Examining  the  de- 
scription of  verb  inflections  for  the  Old  English  period 
given  above,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  general  rule  of 
the  leveling  of  inflectional  vowels  under  the  vowel  -e 
affected  a  considerable  number  of  verb  forms.  The  end- 
ings -aS,  -mS  of  the  present  plural  became  -eS,  like  the 
third  singular.  The  endings  -e,  -a,  and  -#3,  -iaft  of  the 
imperative  became  respectively  -e  and  -eft.  The  infinitive 
endings  -an,  -ian,  -anne  became  -en,  -enne.  In  the  pret- 
erite plural  the  -on,  -don  endings  became  -en,  -den. 
Other  changes  were  due  to  different  causes.  The  end- 
ing of  the  present  participle  -ende  tended  to  fall  to- 
gether with  certain  nouns  naming  actions  which  ended 
regularly  in  -ung,  -ing,  e.  g.,  langung,  "  desire,  longing," 
and  which  in  Old  English  were  distinctly  felt  as  nouns 
and  not  as  parts  of  the  verb.  Their  similarity  in  form, 
however,  and  also  in  meaning,  attracted  the  present 
participle  to  these  nouns,  with  the  result  that  the  -ende 
participial  inflection  was  given  up,  and  the  noun  in  -ung, 
-ing,  and  the  present  participle  became  indistinguishable 
in  form,  both  with  the  ending  -ing.  Another  simplifica- 
tion that  tended  to  take  place  affected  the  preterite, 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  83 

tenses.  In  the  Old  English  strong  verb,  the  preterite 
plural  stem  was  frequently  different  from  the  preterite 
singular,  and  the  past  participle  often  differed  from  both. 
In  Middle  English  the  three  preterite  stems  tended  to  be- 
come alike,  to  simplify  under  one  form,  just  as  the  forms 
of  the  article  all  tended  to  simplify  under  the  type  form 
the.  Thus  the  Old  English  verb  lindan,  band,  bundon, 
bunden,  became  in  Middle  English  binde,  bound,  bound. 
This  leveling  never  became  complete,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  article,  and  we  still  have  in  Modern  English  verbs 
like  sing,  sang,  sung  ,•  drive,  drove,  driven  ,•  the  simplifica- 
tion, however,  affected  a  considerable  number  of  verbs. 

5.  The  Inflections  of  the  Modern  English  Period. 
Altho  the  Modern  English  period  is  called  the  period 
of  lost  inflections,  it  should  be  understood  that  this  term 
is  used  with  relative,  and  not  absolute,  meaning.  All 
inflections  have  not  been  lost  in  the  Modern  English 
period,  altho  compared  with  those  of  the  Middle  Eng- 
lish or  the  Old  English  period  they  have  dwindled  to  a 
very  small  number.  Nevertheless  the  language  still  re- 
mains an  inflectional  language,  and  for  the  expression  of 
certain  ideas  no  other  means  than  inflection  has  been 
devised.  The  developments  in  the  Modern  English 
period  arise  from  the  further  carrying  out  of  the  two 
tendencies  of  the  Middle  English  period,  first  the  tend- 
ency towards  obscuring  the  vowels  of  inflectional 
syllables,  and  second,  the  tendency  towards  simplifica- 
tion by  the  substitution  of  one  type  form  in  the  place  of 
a  variety  of  forms.  In  the  passage  from  the  Middle 
English  to  the  Modern  English  period,  the  language  did 
not  again  become  merely  a  popular  dialect  which  later 
was  elevated  to  the  dignity  of  a  standard  literary 


84  MODERN  ENGLISH 

language,  as  had  occurred  in  the  transition  from  the  Old 
English  to  the  Middle  English  period.  On  the  contrary, 
from  the  end  of  the  Middle  English  time  to  the  present 
day  the  language  has  been  watched  with  increasing  care 
and  vigilance.  It  has  been  systematized,  regulated, 
purified;  in  short,  it  has  tended  to  become  more  and 
more  an  established  and  settled  literary  and  conventional 
language.  The  changes,  consequently,  which  have 
taken  place  in  the  Modern  English  period  have  been 
comparatively  slow  and  comparatively  few  in  number. 
The  difference  between  the  English  of  the  year  1900  and 
the  year  1500  is  much  less  than  that  between  the  Eng- 
lish of  the  year  1250  and  the  year  1000.  The  Modern 
English  has  been  a  regulating,  refining,  systematizing 
period,  rather  than  a  revolutionizing,  reconstructing 
period. 

The  final  result,  in  the  early  Modern  English  period, 
of  the  weakening  of  inflectional  vowels  was,  as  has  been 
stated,  their  complete  loss.  Thus  starting  with  the  Old 
English  dissyllabic  noun  nam-a,  "name,"  we  get  in 
Middle  English  the  form  nam-e,  still  a  dissyllable ;  but 
in  Modern  English  we  have  name,  a  monosyllable,  the 
final  -e  having  no  other  value  than  to  indicate  the 
length  of  the  radical  vowel.  Likewise  the  Old  English 
plural  stan-as,  the  Middle  English  ston-es,  becomes 
Modern  English  ston(e)s ;  and  the  Old  English  genitive 
stan-es,  Middle  English  ston-es,  is  Modern  English 
ston(e)8,  with  an  apostrophe  as  a  mechanical  device  to 
distinguish  the  possessive  from  the  plural.  With  the 
loss  of  the  final  -e  disappeared  also  the  last  remnant  of 
concord  between  the  adjective  and  its  noun.  For  where 
Middle  English  indicated  agreement  in  plural  number 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  85 

and  indicated  the  weak  inflection  of  the  adjective  by  the 
inflectional  -e,  Modern  English,  through  the  loss  of  this 
inflection,  lost  also  the  grammatical  distinctions,  and  uses 
now  only  one  adjective  form  in  all  positions.  The  def- 
inite article,  having  leveled  all  its  forms  under  the  type 
form  the,  had  already  in  the  Middle  English  period 
developed  as  far  as  possible.  The  verb  underwent  the 
same  changes  in  the  loss  of  final  syllables  that  other 
words  experienced:  thus  the  Old  English  infinitive 
wep-an  became  Middle  English  wep-en,  and  this  by  the 
loss  of  the  final  syllable  and  the  regular  change  in  the 
radical  vowel  became  Modern  English  weep. 

As  important  as  these  changes  due  to  inflectional  loss, 
are  those  which  were  brought  about  by  substitution. 
Thus  in  the  nouns  the  two  type  declensions  which  were 
preserved  in  Middle  English,  the  strong  and  the  weak, 
the  strong  forming  its  plural  by  means  of  the  ending 
-es,  the  weak  by  means  of  the  ending  -en,  tended  to  sim- 
plify under  the  type  of  the  strong  nouns,  which  were 
the  more  numerous.  The  result  was  that  where  Chaucer 
wrote  treen,  "  trees,"  been,  t '  bees,"  shoon,  "  shoes,"  and 
so  with  a  great  many  other  nouns,  we  now  use  the  com- 
mon -s  ending  for  all  plurals.  The  only  exceptions  to 
this  rule  (aside  from  a  few  words  like  tooth,  teeth,  which 
form  their  plurals  by  internal  inflection)  and  the  only 
survivals  of  the  old  weak  inflection  in  Modern  English 
are  the  words  ox-en,  plural  of  ox,  children,  and  brethren, 
plurals  of  child  and  brother. 

Substitution  affected  the  old  genitive,  our  modern 
possessive,  in  a  remarkable  way.  The  genitive  ending 
-es  in  Old  English  was  the  mark  of  the  genitive  singu- 
lar, masculine  and  neuter,  of  the  noun.  It  then  became 


86  MODERN   ENGLISH 

a  type  form  for  all  genitives,  feminine  as  well  as  mascu- 
line and  neuter,  in  the  singular.  The  Old  English  geni- 
tive plural  inflection  for  all  genders  was  -a,  -ena,  which 
in  Middle  English  became  -e,  -ene.  In  Modern  English, 
inflectional  loss  would  have  deprived  the  genitive  of  any 
ending  in  the  plural.  Instead,  however,  the  genitive 
singular  ending  became  typical  not  only  for  all  genders 
of  the  singular,  but  for  the  plural  as  well.  The  ending 
-es  was  felt,  therefore,  as  a  generalized  inflection  stand- 
ing for  the  genitive  or  possessive  relation.  We  get,  con- 
sequently, as  the  general  type  form  of  the  singular  noun 
in  Modern  English,  stone,  except  stone's,  the  genitive  or 
possessive,  which  in  writing  and  printing  has  an  apos- 
trophe before  the  -s  to  distinguish  the  word  from  the 
plural.  A  similar  mechanical  device  is  used  to  mark 
the  genitive  or  possessive  plural  from  the  possessive  sin- 
gular and  the  other  forms  of  the  plural ;  here,  however, 
the  apostrophe  is  placed  after  the  -s,  as  in  stones',  tho 
the  phonetic  value  of  the  word  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
possessive  singular.  We  have,  therefore,  as  type  of  the 
plural  inflection,  the  common  form  stones,  with  the  pos- 
sessive plural  stones'.  This  use  of  the  apostrophe  as  a 
mechanical  device  to  indicate  the  possessive  is  of  com- 
paratively late  origin.  It  became  established  only  at 
the  end  of  the  seventeenth  and  in  the  early  eighteenth 
centuries  as  a  result  of  the  growing  influence  of  printing 
and  of  printers'  rules.  It  is  of  course  a  device  for  the 
eye  and  not  for  the  ear.  Before  the  use  of  the  apostro- 
phe, however,  another  method  of  indicating  the  posses- 
sive had  become  pretty  general  in  writing,  the  use  of  the 
pronoun  his  instead  of  the  genitive  ending  -s,  as  in  G-od 
his  wrath,  for  G-od's  wrath.  This  pronoun  his  was  never 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  87 

pronounced  in  spoken  speech,  but,  like  the  apostrophe 
,it  served  merely  as  a  visual  symbol  to  indicate  the  pos- 
sessive relation.  In  proof  of  this  the  remark  of  the 
Elizabethan  versifier,  Gabriel  Harvey,  the  friend  of 
Spenser,  may  be  cited.  Harvey  is  complaining  that  the 
English  spelling  of  his  day  was  misleading  to  the  poet, 
because  often  words  were  spelled  as  dissyllables  but  pro- 
nounced as  monosyllables,  and  continues  thus :  "  But  see 
what  absurdities  thys  yl  fauored  Orthographye,  or  rather 
Pseudography,  hathe  engendred,  and  howe  one  errour 
still  breedeth  and  begetteth  an  other.  Haue  wee  not 
Mooneth  for  Moonthe,  sithence  for  since,  whilest  for  whilste, 
phantasie  for  phansie,  euen  for  evn,  Diuel  for  Divl,  God 
ht/s  wrath  for  Groddes  wrath,  and  a  thousande  of  the  same 
stampe."  l 

Modern  English  has  developed  special  forms  of  the 
possessive  when  the  possessive  stands  in  absolute  position, 
that  is,  when  it  is  not  immediately  followed  by  the  noun 
which  it  modifies.  Thus  we  say,  "  This  is  my  hat,"  or,  in 
the  archaic  form,  "  This  is  thy  hat " ;  but  "  This  hat  is 
mine,  thine."  In  their  origins  the  thine,  mine  forms  of  the 
possessive  are  direct  survivals  of  the  Old  English  geni- 
tives, Sm,  mm.  Formerly,  that  is,  in  the  Middle  English 
period,  these  full  forms  were  retained  before  words  begin- 
ning with  a  vowel  sound,  as  they  are  still  in  Modern  Eng- 
lish poetry,  e.  g.,  "Mine  eyes  have  seen  the  glory  of  the 

1  Gabriel  Harvey,  Of  Reformed  Versify  ing,  written  in  1579-1580,  and  re- 
printed in  Smith,  Elizabethan  Critical  Essays,  I,  120.  Notice  in  this  pas- 
sage how  freely  and  inconsistently  Harvey  uses  the  final  -e,  e.  g.,  hathe, 
howe,  moonthe,  whilste,  thousande,  stampe.  Of  course  none  of  these  final 
-e's  were  pronounced.  At  the  close  of  the  Middle  English  period  when 
the  final  -e's  had  lost  all  phonetic  value,  they  were  often  retained  in  spell- 
ing, but  also  often  dropped,  and  even  were  indiscriminately  added,  to  the 
spelling  of  words  to  which  they  had  ne,ver  really  belonged,. 


88  MODERN   ENGLISH 

coming  of  the  Lord  " ;  but  the  abbreviated  forms  my,  thy, 
tended  to  become  general,  especially  before  words  begin- 
ning with  a  consonant.  When  special  forms  were  required 
for  the  possessive  in  absolute  position,  the  full  forms 
mine,  thine,  were  naturally  chosen,  and  my,  thy,  Ms,  our, 
and  your  became  the  only  forms  for  the  possessive  in 
adjective  position.  But  the  forms  his,  her,  our,  your,  and 
their,  in  absolute  position,  also  underwent  a  change.  In 
Old  English  there  were  not  two  forms  of  these  pro- 
nouns, the  same  form  being  used  in  both  the  adjective 
and  absolute  positions.  In  Middle  English  the  un- 
changed forms  continued  to  be  used  for  some  time,  as 
in  the  Wy cliff e- Purvey  Bible,  Luke  vi,  20 :  the  kyngdom 
of  Grod  is  youre.  But  gradually  a  distinctive  genitive 
ending  for  these  absolute  possessives  was  felt  to  be 
necessary,  and  two  forms  came  into  use.  The  first  was 
made  by  adding  the  regular  -s  genitive  ending,  as  the  type 
indication  of  the  possessive  relation,  giving  ours,  yours, 
and  of  course  his,  which  needed  no  addition.  But  by 
analogy  to  the  mine,  thine  forms,  influenced  perhaps  also 
by  the  possessive  adjective  own,  possessives  with  an  -n 
ending  were  formed,  giving  mine,  thine,  ourn,  yourn, 
theirn,  etc.  Examples  of  this  second  kind  of  formation 
are  found  in  the  Wy  cliff  e-Purvey  Bible,  as  in  Mark  xii, 
7 :  the  eritage  schal  be  ourun  ;  Matthew  v,  3 :  the  kyng- 
dom  of  hevenes  is  herne.  This  form  of  the  absolute 
possessive  persists  in  Modern  English  only  in  popular 
speech,  the  standard  or  conventional  use  having  become 
yours,  hers,  theirs,  etc.1 

1  Some  of  the  dialects  of  England  have  carried  this  method  of  possessive 
formation  over  into  the  nominative,  e.  g.,  shisn,  composed  of  the  nomina- 
tive she,  to  which  are  added  first  the  possessive  -s,  and  then  the  absolute 
possessive  -n  endings.  See  Wright,  English  Dialect  Grammar,  p.  275. 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  89 

Substitution  affected  also  the  forms  of  the  personal 
pronouns  in  an  interesting  way.  In  the  first  person, 
the  correspondence  between  Modern  English  and  the 
earlier  periods  is  close,  Modern  English  I,  mine,  me,  and 
we,  our,  us,  being  the  direct  representation  of  Old  Eng- 
lish ic,  mm,  me,  and  we,  ure,  Us.  In  the  second  person, 
however,  the  difference  is  great.  This  change  started 
with  the  nominative  plural,  Old  English  ge,  which  gave 
our  Biblical  English  ye,  as  in  What  went  ye  out  for  to 
see?  For  this  ye,  however,  was  early  substituted  the 
form  you,  which  was  the  form  for  the  dative  and  accu- 
sative, derived  from  Old  English  low.  The  possessive 
form  was  also  your  from  eower,  and  the  preponderance 
of  the  spellings  you,  you-r  naturally  led  to  its  substitu- 
tion in  the  nominative,  giving  you.  In  the  singular  the 
old  forms  Sw,  Sm,  Se  gave  regularly  our  Biblical  English 
thou,  thine,  thee.  In  the  late  Middle  English  period, 
however,  the  thou,  thine,  thee  forms  tended  to  be  given 
up  for  the  you,  your,  you  forms  of  the  plural.  This  sub- 
stitution was  brought  about  through  the  influence  of 
the  French  language,  in  which  the  plural  form  of  the 
pronoun  was  the  polite  form,  even  in  addressing  a 
single  individual.  The  singular  pronoun  was  used  only 
in  familiar  address,  in  the  conversation  of  intimate 
friends  or  the  members  of  a  family.  Both  forms  of 
the  singular  have  persisted  to  modern  times,  but  the 
forms  thou,  thine,  thee  are  now  used  in  literary  speech, 
and  then  only  in  poetry  and  elevated  discourse ;  the 

The  New  English  Dictionary  cites  the  following  example  from  the 
Hampshire  dialect :  "  Let  thee  and  I  go  our  own  waay,  and  we  '11  let  she 
go  shisn."  Another  analogical  formation,  sometimes  heard  in  the  lan- 
guage of  children,  is  the  possessive  mies  for  my ;  mies  is  to  my,  as  yowrs, 
theirs  are  to  your,  their. 


90  MODERN  ENGLISH 

real  singular  is  now  you,  your,  you.  In  some  dialects, 
especially  in  England,  the  thou,  thine,  thee  forms  also 
persist  in  popular  spoken  use.  In  the  earlier  Modern 
English  period,  in  the  time  of  Shakspere,  and  as  late 
as  the  early  eighteenth  century,  the  two  forms  thou 
and  you  existed  in  good  English  side  by  side,  and 
they  could  be  and  were  used  in  current  colloquial 
speech  with  good  effect.  The  form  thou  was  used  in 
the  conversation  of  friends,  or  of  a  husband  and  wife, 
the  transition  to  you  indicating  a  slightly  more  formal 
tone  in  conversation.  Thus,  for  example,  in  the  come- 
dies of  Etherege  and  Vanbrugh,  two  men  friends  or  two 
women  friends  (but  not  a  man  and  a  woman,  unless 
they  are  husband  and  wife),  usually  address  each  other 
as  thou,  but  to  others  they  are  you.  In  Etherege's  She 
Would  if  She  Could,  Sir  Frederick,  a  boisterous  swash- 
buckler, noisy  and  familiar,  uses  thou  to  Mrs.  Rich,  the 
effect  being  one  of  a  sort  of  friendly,  good-natured  im- 
pertinence, Mrs.  Rich  being  only  his  friend  and  there- 
fore properly  to  be  addressed  by  you.  In  speaking  to- 
servants  and  those  of  inferior  social  rank,  and  in  giving- 
orders,  thou  was  also  the  form  used.  It  was  likewise 
used  in  contemptuous  language,  as  in  Sir  Toby's  advice 
to  Sir  Andrew  Aguecheek,  "  If  thou  thou  'st  him  some 
thrice,  it  shall  not  be  amiss"  (Twelfth  Night,  III,  2). 
All  this  is  what  we  should  expect,  for  the  language  of 
familiar  intercourse,  of  friendship,  and  of  contempt  is 
all  on  somewhat  the  same  plane  —  that  is,  it  is  all  the 
language  of  strongly  colloquial  and  familiar  color.  It  is 
interesting  to  observe  that  the  forms  thou,  thine,  and  thee 
have  been  at  all  periods  the  ones  used  in  prayer  and 
generally  in  elevated  discourse,  and  this  is  true  even  of 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  91 

those  periods  in  which  thou  is  used  as  a  mark  of  famili- 
arity or  of  contempt.  The  polite  forms  you,  your,  you 
have  never  been  used  in  addressing  the  Deity,  probably, 
first  of  all  because  there  was  originally  a  feeling  of  in- 
congruity in  using  what  was  fashionable  or  courtly  lan- 
guage for  this  purpose ;  and  now,  of  course,  you  is  no 
longer  courtly  or  fashionable,  but  too  familiar  to  be  used 
for  lofty  purposes.  Moreover  the  language  of  poetry 
and  prayer  is  always  strongly  traditional  and  conserva- 
tive; it  would  consequently  tend  to  preserve  the  old 
historical  usage  of  the  English  tongue,  and  once  the  use 
of  thou  was  fixed  in  sacred  language,  as  in  the  prayer 
book  and  the  English  translation  of  the  Bible,  it  would 
naturally  be  very  influential  in  maintaining  that  usage 
through  later  periods.  This  feeling  for  thou  as  the  only 
proper  form  to  be  used  in  addressing  the  Deity  is  well 
brought  out  in  a  passage  of  a  sixteenth  century  work,  A 
Dialogue  against  the  Feuer  Pestilence,  printed  in  1564. 1 
A  beggar,  Mendicus,  appears  at  a  door  soliciting  alms, 
and  recites  part  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  as  follows :  "  Our 
father  whiche  art  in  heauen,  hallowed  be  your  name, 
your  kyngdom  come,  your  will  be  dooen  in  yearth  as  it 
is  in  heauen,"  etc.,  upon  which  he  is  ridiculed  by  Civis 
and  Uxor,  the  gentlemen  from  whom  he  is  soliciting 
alms,  one  of  whom  remarks,  "  Me  thinke  I  doe  heare  a 
good  manerly  Begger  at  the  doore,  and  well  brought  up. 
How  reuerently  he  saieth  his  Pater  Noster !  he  thous  no.k 
God,  but  you[s]  him." 

The  discrepancy  between  the  plural  form  you  a&  a 
word  of  address  to  a  single  person  disturbed  greatly  the 
of  mind  of  the;  lounders  ol  the  Society  of  Friands 

V  Early  English.  Text  Society,  Extta  Series,.  VoL.LII,  p^  5., 


92  MODERN  ENGLISH 

or  Quakers.  They  observed  that  the  Bible,  meaning  of 
course  the  English  translation,  always  used  thou  to  one 
and  you  to  many.  They  thought  it  not  fitting,  therefore, 
that  men  should  use  a  more  dignified  form  of  expression 
in  addressing  each  other  than  they  used  in  addressing 
the  Lord.  Moreover  you  as  a  word  of  address  to  a  single 
person  is  not  consistent  with  the  well-known  rule  of 
grammar,  according  to  which  you  is  plural,  and  therefore 
on  that  score  also  its  use  as  singular  was  wrong.  Thi? 
is  just  the  kind  of  linguistic  crotchet  which  we  might 
expect  to  stick  in  the  mind  of  a  half-educated  person 
like  George  Fox,  the  founder  of  the  Society  of  Friends ; 
and  it  is  not  surprising  to  see  him  come  forth  in 
defense  of  Thou  to  One  and  You  to  Many,  to  use  his 
own  battle-cry.  He  published  a  work  called  "  A  Battle- 
Door^  for  Teachers  and  Professors  to  learn  Singular  and 
Plural ;  You  to  Many,  and  Thou  to  One :  Singular  One, 
Thou;  Plural  Many,  You,"  which  was  printed  in  London, 
for  "Robert  Wilson  and  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  at  the 
Signe  of  the  Black-spread-Eagle  and  Wind-mil  in  Mar- 
tins le  Grand,  1660.'*  The  teachers  and  professors  of 
his  day  Fox  takes  to  task  in  the  following  fashion: 
"  Do  not  they  speak  false  English,  false  Latine,  false 
Greek,  false  Hebrew,  false  Caldee,  false  Syriack,  and 
Arabick,  false  Dutch,  false  French;  and  false  to  the 
other  Tongues,  that  followes  here  in  this  Book,  that 
doth  not  speak  thou  to  one,  what  ever  he  be,  Father, 

1  A  battle-door,  as  the  word  is  used  here,  means  a  primer.  Literally 
the  word  means  a  wooden  bat,  shaped  somewhat  like  a  tennis  racket.  But 
it  is  used  in  this  metaphorical  sense  because  the  early  primer,  or  horn-book, 
consisted  of  a  cardboard  with  the  abc,  etc.,  on  it,  surrounded  by  a  wooden 
rim  with  a  handle,  and  covered  with  a  transparent  piece  of  horn,  the  whole 
being  shaped  somewhat  like  a  flat  bat  or  racket, 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  98 

Mother,  King,  or  Judge ;  is  he  not  a  Novice  and  Un- 
mannerly, and  an  Ideot  and  a  Fool,  that  speaks  You  to 
one,  which  is  not  to  be  spoken  to  a  singular,  but  to  many? 
O  Vulgar  Professors  and  Teachers,  that  speaks  Plural 
when  they  should  Singular,  lapis,  a  stone,  lapides,  stones, 
that  is,  more  than  one.  Come  you  Priests  and  Profes- 
sors, have  you  not  learnt  your  Accidence  ?  "  1 

This  avoidance  of  you  as  a  pronoun  of  address  in  the 
singular  has  persisted  to  this  day  among  the  Friends. 
But  the  old,  and  historically  the  correct,  form  thou  as 
nominative  has  been  given  up  for  the  type  form  thee, 
used  for  both  nominative  and  objective,  as  in  "  Thee  will 
have  to  get  thee  another  coat."  In  thus  using  the  objec- 
tive thee  as  the  type  form,  the  Friends  have  done  exactly 
what  the  standard  language  has  done,  since  the  nomina- 
tive here  is  historically  ye  and  the  objective  is  you, 
from  Old  English  ge  and  eow,  the  two  forms  being  sim- 
plified under  one,  the  objective  form  you. 

Substitution  has  also  contributed  largely  to  the  sim- 
plification of  the  Modern  English  verb  system.  The 
limiting  of  the  principal  parts  by  reducing  the  preterite 
tenses  to  one  type  form  has  already  been  mentioned. 
The  personal  inflections  have  also  been  simplified,  es- 
pecially in  the  present  tense.  Here,  through  the  com- 
bined influence  of  inflectional  leveling  and  loss,  and  of 
substitution,  working  through  several  dialects  of  the 
Middle  English  period,  all  forms  have  been  reduced  to 
a  single  type,  e.  g.  (7,  you,  we,  you,  they)  sing,  with 
the  exception  of  the  third  singular,  (he)  sings,  which 
has  an  inflectional  -a.  The  elevated  language  has  been 
more  conservative,  preserving  the  special  forms  for  the 

I  Fox,  A  Battle-Door  for  Teachers,  pp.  2-3. 


94  MODERN  ENGLISH 

singular  (I)  sing,  (thou)  singest,  (He)  singeth,  but  the 
plural  is  the  same  in  both  elevated  and  normal  style. 

6.  Conclusions.  The  general  effect  of  inflectional 
loss  and  substitution  has  been  to  change  to  a  consider- 
able extent  the  structure  of  the  English  language. 
From  a  language  in  which  each  word  was  closely  and 
formally  united  to  some  other  word  by  agreement  in 
grammatical  form,  that  is  from  a  synthetic  language, 
English  has  developed  into  a  language  in  which  the 
words,  so  far  as  formal  concord  or  agreement  goes,  are 
almost  altogether  free  and  independent.  The  language 
has  developed  type  forms  which  can  stand  in  any  posi- 
tion, their  relationships  being  indicated  largely  by  the 
order  of  the  words  as  they  are  put  together,  not  by 
inflectional  elements.  This  kind  of  language  is  called 
analytic,  in  contrast  to  synthetic,  because  in  its  struc- 
ture it  is  made  up  of  independent  units  which  may  be 
easily  detached  from  each  other,  whereas  in  the  syn- 
thetic structure,  the  language  binds  the  word  group  into 
a  whole  in  which  all  the  words  are  mutually  dependent 
for  their  form  on  their  place  in  the  group.  This  will 
be  made  clear  by  an  illustration.  The  adjective  old  in 
our  modern  analytic  language  may  modify  any  noun 
of  any  gender,  number,  or  case;  it  is  a  perfectly  free, 
universal  word-unit.  In  a  synthetic  stage  of  the  lan- 
guage, however,  as  in  Old  English,  the  adjective  old 
had  to  take  on  various  forms  according  to  the  gender, 
number,  and  case  of  the  noun,  and  according  as  it  was 
inflected  strong  or  weak.  Thus  the  Modern  English 
phrases  the  old  man  and  the  old  men,  changes  only  the 
word  man,  the  other  words  being  type  forms  that  modify 
the  plural  as  well  AS  the  singular.  In  ^Qip).  English, 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  95 

however,  we  should  have  to  change  all  three  words, 
se  ealda  man  for  the  singular,  and  pa  ealdan  men  for  the 
plural. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  example  that  the  modern 
analytic  language  has  in  many  respects  gained  in  econ- 
omy over  the  older  synthetic  language.  By  the  use 
of  type  forms,  the  modern  language  saves  much  useless 
repetition.  Thus  in  the  two  Modern  English  phrases 
cited  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  the  ideas  of  singular 
and  plural  are  each  expressed  once  by  man  and  men, 
and  need  not,  so  far  as  power  of  conveying  the  thought 
is  concerned,  be  expressed  by  the  modifying  words. 
But  in  Old  English  not  only  does  man  express  the 
singular  idea,  but  it  is  expressed  also  by  the  inflection 
in  se  and  ealda;  and  in  the  case  of  the  plural,  the  idea 
of  plurality  is  expressed  three  times  as  well,  once  by 
men,  once  by  ealdan  and  once  by  ]>d.  Nothing  is  gained 
by  this  threefold  repetition  of  the  idea  of  plurality,  and 
Modern  English  is  much  the  simpler  and  more  reason- 
able in  allowing  it  to  be  assumed  that  when  one  uses 
the  noun  men,  adjectives  which  limit  this  noun  are 
plural  also.  In  the  same  way  the  synthetic  language 
has  to  repeat  the  idea  of  gender  or  of  case  with  each 
new  modifying  word,  whereas  in  Modern  English  this 
repetition  is  likewise  avoided  by  the  use  of  type  forms 
for  all  genders  and  cases. 

One  further  illustration  of  the  change  from  synthetic 
to  analytic  structure,  and  the  advantage  of  the  latter 
over  the  former,  may  be  cited,  the  example  being  taken 
from  Modern  English  and  Latin,  the  latter  a  more  highly 
inflectional,  and  therefore  more  synthetic,  language  than 
period  of  English.  The  English  relative  pronoun  who 


96  MODERN  ENGLISH 

is  a  type  form,  expressing  merely  the  interrogative  idea 
without  limitation  of  gender  or  number.  To  translate 
the  English  sentence,  Who  did  it  f  into  Latin,  however, 
we  should  have  to  give  four  sentences,  Quis  hoc  fecit? 
the  pronoun  being  the  singular  masculine  interrogative ; 
Quae  hoc  fecit  ?  the  pronoun  being  the  singular  feminine ; 
Qui  hoc  fecerunt  ?  the  plural  masculine ;  and  Quae  hoc 
feceruntf  the  plural  feminine.  Since  the  question 
Who  did  it  ?  usually  contains  no  implication  of  gender 
and  number,  and  is  merely  a  question  for  information,  it 
is  manifestly  better  to  have  a  general  type  form  in  which 
to  cast  the  question,  than  to  be  compelled  to  make  it 
specific  as  to  gender  and  number  as  the  Latin  must  do. 
The  English  analytic  form  of  expression  answers  more 
exactly  to  the  logic  of  the  situation,  and  is  consequently 
to  be  regarded  as  better  than  the  synthetic  form  of 
expression.1 

The  question  naturally  arises  whether  Modern  English 
has  carried  the  process  of  simplification  and  substitution 
as  far  as  it  can,  and  if  not,  if  it  is  likely  to  carry  it 
further.  As  to  the  first  half  of  this  question,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  there  is  room  for  further  simplification  in  the 
English  language,  and  that  the  language  would  be  the 
gainer  by  further  simplifications.  These  simplifying  sub- 
stitutions are  indeed  carried  out  in  strata  of  the  language 
which  do  not  feel  the  restraining  force  of  the  conven- 
tional and  standard  speech.  Thus  we  have  all  observed 
that  children  strive  to  substitute  the  type  plural  in  -s 
for  those  few  irregular  plurals  that  survive  in  English, 

1  See  Jespersen,  Progress  in  Language,  pp.  30-31 ;  and  see  Jespersen's 
book,  passim,  for  a  detailed  consideration  of  the  advantages  of  an  analytic 
language  over  a  synthetic  one. 


ENGLISH  INFLECTIONS  97 

giving  thus  foots,  tooths,  for  feet,  teeth,  etc.  It  is  a 
general  tendency  with  children  also  to  substitute  the 
regular  or  weak  forms  for  all  the  irregular  or  strong 
forms  of  the  verb,  giving  grow,  growed,  growed,  for  grow, 
grew,  grown;  drive,  drived,  drived,  for  drive,  drove, 
driven,  etc.  These  usages  of  child  language  may  all  be 
paralleled  by  usages  of  uneducated  adults,  since  children 
and  the  uneducated  are  on  the  same  plane  so  far  as  the 
restraining  power  of  rule  or  convention  in  language  is 
concerned.  Thus  the  very  common  tendency  of  the  un- 
educated to  use  only  one  form  for  the  past  tense  and 
past  participle  of  the  verb,  usually  the  past  participle 
being  made  to  do  duty  for  both,  as  in  He  done  it,  and  / 
seen  him,  is  exactly  this  process  of  type  substitution. 
Logically  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  have  more 
than  two  principal  parts  in  the  verb,  one  for  present 
time  and  one  for  past  time,  /  do,  and  I  did,  or  done,  I 
see,  and  /  saw,  or  seen,  with  which  the  auxiliaries  can 
then  build  up  the  various  compound  tenses  and  forms. 
The  regular  verbs,  like  walk,  walked,  walked,  and  many 
of  the  irregular,  have  and  need  only  two  principal  parts. 
The  substitution  of  seen  for  saw  and  done  for  did  is 
exactly  similar  in  kind  to  other  substitutions  which  took 
place  in  earlier  periods,  and  which  have  been  accepted 
into  the  standard  language.  Thus  the  verb  cling,  clung, 
clung,  historically  should  have  three  parts,  cling,  clang, 
clung,  like  sing,  sang,  sung ;  ring,  rang,  rung,  etc.  So 
also  the  verb  shine,  shone,  shone  is  derived  from  the  Old 
English  verb  sclnan,  scan,  scinon,  scinen,  which  should 
have  given  regularly  shine,  shone,  shinnen,  like  ride, 
rode,  ridden;  write,  wrote,  written,  and  numerous  other 
verbs.  Instead,  however,  it  has  substituted  a  type  form 

7 


98  MODERN  ENGLISH 

for  the  preterite  tenses,  using  for  this  purpose  the  regu- 
lar form  of  the  preterite  singular. 

But  the  question  whether  or  not  Modern  English  will 
carry  out  further  these  simplifications  by  type  substitu- 
tion is  one  which  does  not  depend  upon  precedent,  or,  to 
any  considerable  extent,  upon  the  reasonableness  and 
advantage  of  such  changes.  The  English  language  of 
to-day  has  become  so  fixed  by  long  use,  by  the  systematic 
statements  of  it  which  have  been  made  by  the  gram- 
marians and  rhetoricians,  by  the  conventionalizing  ten- 
dencies which  always  accompany  the  higher  forms  of 
civilization,  that  changes  in  such  obvious  features  of 
language  as  inflection  find  it  extremely  hard  to  make 
their  way  into  good  use.  The  popular  dialects  will  con- 
tinue to  grow  and  develop  in  a  freer  and  less  trammeled 
way,  but  the  cultivated  speech,  tho  no  less  subject  to 
continuous  change,  is  more  likely  to  change  in  subtler 
ways  than  by  the  direct  substitution  of  one  form  for 
another. 


V 

ENGLISH  SOUNDS 

1.  The  Study  of  English  Sounds.  Altho  one  of 
the  most  recent  branches  of  linguistic  study,  the  study 
of  sounds,  or  phonetics,  to  give  the  subject  its  tech- 
nical name,  has  been  one  of  the  most  productive  of 
valuable  results.  The  study  of  the  sounds  of  past  pe- 
riods has  made  the  science  of  etymology  possible,  and  it 
has  been  one  of  the  chief  means  of  determining  the  rela- 
tionships of  languages.  Grimm's  Law,  for  example,  is  a 
phonetic  law.  The  study  of  contemporary  sounds  also 
is  helpful  in  various  ways.  It  is  of  great  practical  value 
to  all  who  have  anything  to  do  with  foreign  languages, 
or  with  the  earlier  stages  of  their  own  language.  There 
is  no  quicker  or  more  certain  way  of  apprehending  an 
unfamiliar  sound  than  by  observing  how,  that  is,  by  just 
what  positions  and  movements  of  the  vocal  organs  it  is 
made,  and  then  by  repeating  these  positions  and  move- 
ments for  one's  self.  Another  reason  for  the  study  of 
the  sounds  of  contemporary  speech  is  based  on  the  gen- 
eral principle  that  we  all  owe  it  to  ourselves  to  know 
what  we  do,  and  to  choose  to  do  those  things  that  will 
conduce  most  to  our  happiness  and  welfare.  It  might 
seem  that  it  could  be  taken  for  granted  that  every  one 
naturally  knew  just  how  his  speech  sounded,  without 
giving  any  special  attention  to  the  matter.  Experiment 
and  observation  have  shown,  however,  that  this  is  far 


100  MODERN  ENGLISH 

from  being  true.  One  who  has  not  given  considerable 
attention  to  the  study  of  speech-sounds  does  not  usually 
hear  his  own  speech  accurately  and  justly.  He  needs 
the  gift  to  hear  himself  as  others  hear  him.  Time  and 
again  it  has  been  shown  that  a  person  thinks  he  says 
one  thing  when  actually  the  sound  which  he  utters  is 
different.  Often  if  one's  speech  could  be  recorded  on 
the  disc  of  a  phonograph,  when  reproduced  it  would  not 
be  recognized  and  would  be  disclaimed  by  the  person 
who  uttered  it. 

The  practical  bearing  of  all  this  is  obvious.  Pronun- 
ciation and  grammar  are  without  doubt  the  most  gener- 
ally applied,  and,  on  the  whole,  the  simplest  and  most 
effective  tests  of  cultivation  and  education.  As  Holmes 
in  the  Autocrat  says,  "  a  movement  or  a  phrase  often  tells 
you  all  you  want  to  know  about  a  person."  No  doubt 
there  is  danger  of  drawing  too  sweeping  inferences  from 
the  speech  of  others,  a  danger  to  which  all,  the  critic 
and  the  criticised,  are  equally  liable.  Nevertheless,  in 
the  end  speech  remains  the  surest  and  most  convenient 
index  of  the  social  habits  and  the  intellectual  life  of  the 
person  who  uses  it.  It  behooves  all,  therefore,  to  take 
cognizance  of  the  matter  of  their  speech,  especially  of 
the  subtle  and  elusive  matter  of  pronunciation.  Every 
person  owes  it  to  himself  to  know  what  the  facts  of  his 
pronunciation  are  and  how  these  facts  impress  other  per- 
sons with  whom  he  is  thrown  in  contact.  When  he  has 
a  just  appreciation  of  all  these  facts,  he  can  then  order 
his  conduct  as  seems  wisest  and  best  to  him.  Before  we 
can  proceed,  however,  to  the  intelligent  discussion  of 
historical  sound  changes  or  of  specific  questions  of  con- 
temporary pronunciation,  it  will  be  necessary,  first,  to 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  101 

describe  briefly  the  organs  of  speech  and  the  method 
of  sound-production  in  speaking,  and,  second,  to  settle 
upon  some  terminology,  or  representation,  of  sounds  by 
which  the  various  sounds  may  be  certainly  designated  and 
distinguished. 

2.  The  Production  of  English  Sounds.  Sound, 
so  far  as  we  are  concerned  with  it  in  the  study  of  lan- 
guage, may  be  defined  as  the  sensation  of  hearing  pro- 
duced by  the  modifications  of  a  column  of  air  in  its 
passage  from  the  lungs  through  the  organs  of  speech. 
The  specific  character  of  the  sound  varies  as  the  column 
of  air  is  variously  modified  by  the  different  organs 
through  which  it  passes.  The  production  of  speech- 
sound,  therefore,  is  essentially  not  different  from  the 
production  of  musical  sound  in  a  wind  instrument,  as  a 
horn  or  a  clarinet. 

Phonetics,  however,  which  is  the  study  of  the  sounds 
of  language,  is  not  concerned  with  all  the  sounds  which 
the  human  organs  of  speech  are  capable  of  producing, 
such  as  shrieks,  cries,  groans,  and  so  forth,  but  only  with 
articulate  sounds,  that  is,  those  sounds  which  are  joined 
together,  or  articulated,  for  the  formation  of  syllables, 
then  of  words,  phrases,  and  sentences.  Moreover,  a 
language,  English  for  example,  does  not  use  all  the  pos- 
sible articulate  sounds  which  the  voice  can  produce,  but 
makes  a  selection  from  a  comparatively  much  larger 
number,  which  become  then  the  sound  material  of  the 
language.  Different  languages  make  a  choice  of  different 
sounds ;  and  we  have  sounds  in  English  which  are  not 
used  in  French  and  German,  and  French  and  German, 
on  the  other  hand,  have  sounds  which  we  do  not  use  in 
English.  Yet  we  know  from  the  fact  that  Englishmen 


102  MODERN  ENGLISH 

learn  French  and  German,  and  Frenchmen  and  Germans 
learn  English,  that  all,  with  practice,  are  equally  capable 
of  producing  all  the  sounds  of  the  various  languages. 
Each  special  language,  therefore,  makes  what  seems  to 
be  an  arbitrary  choice  of  a  certain  number  of  possible 
sounds ;  and  we  may  consequently  define  English  pho- 
netics as  the  study  of  the  sounds  used  in  the  construction 
of  English  speech. 

The  organs  mainly  concerned  in  the  production  of 
speech  sound  are  the  lungs ;  the  larynx,  in  which  are 
the  glottis  and  the  vocal  chords;  the  cavity  of  the 
mouth,  in  which  the  tongue,  the  palate,  the  lips  and  the 
teeth  are  important  modifiers  of  sound;  and  the  cavity 
of  the  nose.  The  lungs  are  concerned  with  the  produc- 
tion of  sound  only  in  that  they  send  forth  the  column  of 
air  which  later  is  modified  by  the  more  special  organs  of 
voice  so  as  to  produce  sound.  When  one  produces 
sound  by  playing  a  wind  instrument  the  column  of  air 
passes  unmodified  by  the  speech  organs  into  the  more 
distant  modifying  agent,  the  horn,  or  flute,  or  whatever 
the  instrument  may  be.  Under  normal  conditions  it  is 
only  the  expiratory  column  of  air  that  is  used  in  the 
production  of  speech  sound,  the  inspired  air  being  pro- 
ductive of  sound  only  in  the  case  of  sighing  and  a  few 
interjections. 

The  larynx,  or  voice  box,  is  the  first  place  at  which 
the  air  from  the  lungs  on  its  passage  outward  may  meet 
with  any  obstruction.  The  larynx  is  really  a  part  of  the 
windpipe,  or  trachea,  and  leads  from  the  rear  end  of 
the  opening  of  the  nose  and  mouth  to  the  lungs.  From 
the  back  of  the  mouth  a  second  tube,  the  gullet,  or  esoph- 
agus, leads  into  the  stomach.  The  common  space  at  the 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  103 

back  of  the  mouth  from  which  these  two  canals  branch 
is  called  the  pharynx.  The  entrance  to  the  trachea,  or 
windpipe,  is  provided  with  a  valve  or  lid,  called  the 
epiglottis,  which  can  be  lowered  in  the  act  of  swallow- 
ing so  as  to  prevent  food  from  passing  down  the 
trachea.  When  for  any  reason  the  epiglottis  fails  to 
work,  as  it  does  some  times,  and  portions  of  food  or 
water  make  their  way  into  the  trachea,  we  perform  the 
operation  popularly  known  as  "  swallowing  by  the  Sun- 
day throat." 

The  larynx  itself  is  a  circular,  or  nearly  circular,  and 
tubular  combination  of  cartilages  and  muscles.  The 
largest  of  these  cartilages,  the  thyroid  or  shield-like 
cartilage,  forms  the  main  structure  of  the  larynx ;  it  can 
be  felt  from  the  outside  of  the  throat,  and  is  commonly 
known  as  the  Adam's  apple.  Another  important  carti- 
lage is  the  cricoid,  or  ring  cartilage,  which  forms  the 
base  of  the  voice  box  or  larynx,  and  to  which  the  vocal 
chords  are  attached.  The  muscles  of  the  larynx  pass 
from  one  cartilage  to  the  other  and  have  as  their  chief 
function  the  contraction  and  loosening  of  the  vocal  chords. 
These  chords  are  two  in  number,  and  they  are  attached  to 
the  base  of  the  larynx,  passing  approximately  over  the 
middle  of  the  opening  of  the  larynx.  They  are  not  to 
be  thought  of  as  chords  like  violin  strings,  for  one  side 
of  each  is  completely  attached  to  the  sides  of  the  voice 
box.  The  vibrating  part  is  only  the  free  outer  edge  of 
each,  which,  as  has  been  stated,  can  be  tightened  or 
loosened  by  the  aid  of  certain  muscles.  The  space  be- 
tween the  two  outer  edges  of  the  vocal  chords,  which 
varies  of  course  in  width  according  to  the  tension  of  the 
chords,  is  called  the  glottal  rift,  or  rima  glottidis.  When 


104  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  edges  of  the  chords  are  relaxed,  allowing  a  wide  rift 
between  them,  the  breath  from  the  lungs  passes  through 
this  space  without  setting  the  chords  in  vibration,  and, 
consequently,  no  sound  is  produced  in  the  larynx.  This 
last  qualification  is  important,  because  the  air  from  the 
lungs  may  still  meet  with  some  obstruction  from  the 
organs  of  the  mouth  or  nose,  in  which  case  sound  would 
be  produced.  If  it  does  not,  it  passes  out  of  the  nose  or 
mouth  almost  noiselessly,  and  the  process  is  simply  that 
of  breathing.  When  the  rift  is  narrowed,  however,  by 
the  stretching  of  the  vocal  chords,  the  passage  of  the  air 
makes  the  chords  vibrate,  and  the  sound  which  we  call 
voice  is  produced.  It  should  be  clearly  understood  that 
the  word  voice  is  here  used  in  a  restricted  and  special 
sense.  It  does  not  mean  any  sound  produced  by  the  or- 
gans of  speech,  but  only  those  sounds  in  the  production 
of  which  the  vocal  chords  are  set  in  vibration.  Such 
sounds  are  called  voiced  sounds,  others  are  voiceless.  In 
whispering,  voiceless  sounds  are  produced  in  the  same 
way  as  when  they  are  given  their  full  resonance  ;  but  in 
the  whispering  of  voiced  sounds  the  vocal  chords  do  not 
vibrate,  or  vibrate  only  slightly,  altho  they  are  made 
tense,  and  the  glottal  rift  is  accordingly  narrowed,  as  in 
the  production  of  the  full-voiced  sounds. 

We  may  now  pass  to  those  organs  above  the  larynx 
which  are  important  for  the  production  of  speech  sound. 
They  are  the  pharynx,  the  cavity  of  the  mouth,  and  the 
cavity  of  the  nose.  These  three  spaces  are  together 
known  as  the  resonance  chamber,  and  they  are  of  the 
greatest  importance  in  the  production  of  sound,  because 
no  column  of  air  can  proceed  from  the  lungs  which  is 
not  modified  in  some  way  by  the  resonance  chamber.  In 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  105 

fact,  all  voice  as  it  comes  from  the  vocal  chords  would 
be  the  same,  except  for  differences  in  loudness  and  soft- 
ness, and  it  is  the  resonance  chamber  which  determines 
the  specific  value  of  this  sound  as  one  vowel  rather  than 
another.  By  changing  the  shape  of  the  resonance 
chamber,  the  speaker  gets  different  vowel  effects, 
just  as  the  musician  gets  different  tone  effects  from  a 
tuba  and  a  cornet,  because  the  two  instruments  have 
tubes  of  different  shapes  and  sizes,  that  is,  have  different 
resonance  chambers.  After  it  has  passed  through  the 
larynx  and  into  the  pharynx,  the  breath  from  the  lungs 
may  then  enter  the  cavity  of  the  mouth,  or  of  the  nose, 
or  both  together.  We  shall  consider,  first,  the  cavity  of 
the  mouth,  and,  second,  the  nasal  cavity. 

The  roof  of  the  mouth  is  divided  into  two  parts,  the 
soft  palate,  or  velum,  at  the  back  part  of  the  mouth,  and 
the  hard  palate  at  the  front  part.  The  hard  palate  is 
fixed  and  motionless,  except  as  it  moves  with  the  motion 
of  the  jaws.  But  the  velum  (a  Latin  name  meaning 
"veil")  may  be  raised  or  lowered.  When  it  is  raised, 
it  closes  the  entrance  to  the  nasal  cavity,  when  lowered 
it  permits  the  air  from  the  lungs  to  pass  out  equally 
through  the  nose  and  the  mouth.  Within  the  mouth 
the  most  important  of  the  movable  muscles  is  the  tongue, 
the  parts  of  which  need  no  description.  Beside  the  pal- 
ate and  tongue,  the  teeth,  gums,  and  lips  are  also  used 
in  the  production  of  sounds. 

The  nasal  cavity  or  passage  is  a  membrane-lined  pas- 
sage with  no  movable  or  muscular  parts.  It  leads  out 
from  the  pharynx  and  is  narrower  at  both  ends  than 
at  the  middle,  forming  thus  a  good  resonance  chamber. 
The  passage  is  divided  in  the  nose  by  a  septum  or  par- 


106  MODERN  ENGLISH 

tition,  into  a  right  and  a  left  portion.  As  has  been 
stated,  the  entrance  to  the  nasal  passage  can  be  closed 
by  raising  the  velum,  in  which  case  all  breath  passes  out 
through  the  mouth.  "  Talking  through  the  nose  "  is  a 
popular  misconception  of  the  facts.  The  truth  is  that 
when  one  "  talks  through  the  nose,"  one  does  n't  talk 
through  the  nose,  as  one  should,  but  the  velum  is  then 
raised,  or  the  entrance  to  the  nasal  passage  is  closed  be- 
cause of  the  swelling  due  to  cold  or  some  other  disturb- 
ance of  normal  conditions,  and  the  unpleasant  effect 
which  results  is  due  to  the  lack  of  that  resonance  which 
the  sound  should  have  received  by  passing  through  the 
nasal  chamber.  A  "  nasal  twang "  is  due  to  the  same 
cause.  It  is  a  general  principle  that  all  sounds  should 
be  given  as  much  resonance  as  they  are  capable  of  receiv- 
ing, and  the  speaker  who  has  allowed  himself  to  fall  into 
the  habit  of  speaking  with  the  flat,  unmusical  quality  of 
sound  which  results  from  the  closing  of  the  nasal  pas- 
sage, should  cultivate  a  more  open  method  of  sound 
production.  The  difference  between  the  closed  and  the 
open  nasal  passage  may  be  easily  observed  by  first  imi- 
tating the  speech  of  one  suffering  from  a  cold  and  then 
speaking  with  the  full  quality  of  sound  which  normally 
characterizes  the  correct  use  of  the  voice. 

3.  Voiced  and  Voiceless  Sounds.  Having  de- 
scribed the  main  organs  of  speech,  we  may  proceed  now 
to  some  account  of  the  modifications  of  sound  produced 
by  these  various  organs.  The  first  important  distinction 
is  that  between  voiced  and  voiceless  sounds.  Voiced 
sounds,  which  are  also  called  sonant  sounds,  are  those 
in  the  production  of  which  the  vocal  chords  are  set  in 
vibration.  All  vowels  are  voiced,  because  vowels  are 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  107 

produced  by  the  vibration  of  the  vocal  chords,  the  dif- 
ference between  vowels  being  caused  by  modification  of 
the  sound  produced  by  these  vibrations  through  chang- 
ing the  configuration  of  the  resonance  chamber.  Some 
consonants  are  voiced,  others  are  voiceless.  Examples 
of  voiced  consonants  are  g  in  go,  b  in  boy,  d  in  day. 

In  the  production  of  voiceless  sounds,  which  are  also 
called  surd  sounds,  the  vocal  chords  are  not  set  in  vibra- 
tion, but  the  sound  is  produced  through  modification  of 
the  column  of  air  by  the  various  organs  of  speech,  teeth, 
tongue,  and  lips,  after  it  has  passed  through  the  rift  of 
the  glottis  without  moving  the  vocal  chords.  Examples 
of  voiceless  consonants  are  p  in  pay,  t  in  tin,  k  (<?)  in 
king,  can.  By  placing  the  finger  on  the  Adam's  apple 
one  can,  with  a  little  practice,  easily  feel  the  vibration 
of  the  voice  box  in  the  production  of  voiced  sounds,  and 
can  thus  distinguish  sounds  which  are  voiced  from  those 
which  are  not,  thus  confirming  the  testimony  of  the 
ears.  In  pronouncing  a  voiceless  consonant  one  should 
distinguish  between  the  consonant  and  the  vowel  that 
accompanies  it.  The  name  of  the  letter  t,  for  example, 
consists  of  the  voiceless  consonant  t,  followed  by  a  vowel 
which  is  the  same  as  the  vowel  in  tea,  he,  see,  etc.  In 
forming  consonants  for  the  purpose  of  observing  them, 
always  distinguish  between  the  consonant  and  any  accom- 
panying vowel. 

4.  Vowels  and  Consonants.  When  the  passages 
through  the  mouth  and  through  the  nose  are  left  open, 
so  that  the  air,  passing  through  the  larynx  and  there  set- 
ting the  vocal  chords  in  vibration,  may  continue  without 
further  obstruction  through  these  passages  to  the  outer 
air,  a  vowel  sound  is  prpduced.  The  passage  is  widest 


108  MODERN  ENGLISH 

open  in  pronouncing  the  vowel  a  in  father;  it  is  vari- 
ously modified  in  pronouncing  the  other  vowels,  but  at 
no  time  is  it  completely  closed,  coming  nearest  to  being 
so  in  pronouncing  the  vowel  ee  in  seen,  keen>  etc.  It 
should  be  noticed  that  vowels  can  be  lengthened  indefi- 
nitely in  pronunciation,  the  only  question  being  the 
amount  of  breath  one  has  at  one's  disposal. 

When  the  column  of  air  from  the  lungs,  as  it  ap- 
proaches the  outer  air,  is  (a)  completely  stopped,  or  (b) 
completely  stopped  at  one  point  but  allowed  to  escape 
at  another,  the  sound  produced  is  a  consonant.  In  the 
first  case,  when  the  column  of  air  is  completely  stopped, 
the  consonant  produced  is  called  a  stop  consonant  or 
explosive,  both  names  being  descriptive  of  the  method 
of  formation  of  these  sounds.  Examples  of  stop  or  ex- 
plosive consonants  are  #,  6,  d,  &,  p,  t.  Stop  consonants, 
since  they  are  produced  by  a  sudden  and  momentary 
explosion  of  the  breath,  cannot  be  lengthened. 

In  the  second  case,  when  the  column  of  air  is  only 
partly  stopped  in  its  escape  to  the  outer  air,  the  conso- 
nant produced  is  called  a  continuant  consonant.  Contin- 
uants are  of  various  kinds,  caused  by  the  interference  of 
different  parts  of  the  speech  organs.  They  consist  (1)  of 
spirants,  caused  by  the  interference  of  the  teeth  and  lips 
with  the  column  of  air;  spirants  may  be  voiced,  as,  for 
example,  v  in  vat  ;  8  (z)  in  phrase  ;  th  in  father ;  or 
voiceless,  like  /  in  fat ;  c  (s)  in  place  ;  th  in  thin  ;  (2) 
of  liquids  or  linguals,  caused  by  the  interference  of  the 
tongue  with  the  column  of  air,  as,  for  example,  I  and  r; 
(3)  of  nasals,  caused  by  the  complete  obstruction  of  the 
exit  through  the  mouth,  causing  thus  all  the  air  to  pass 
through  the  nose;  the  examples  are  m  and  n;  (4)  of 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  109 

labials,  caused  by  the  interference  of  the  lips,  as  in  w.  The 
continuants,  like  the  vowels,  may  all  be  continued  in- 
definitely in  pronunciation  as  long  as  the  breath  holds  out. 
5.  Classification  of  Consonants.  Beside  the  clas- 
sification of  consonants  as  voiced  and  voiceless,  stop  or 
continuant,  consonants  are  further  classified  and  named 
according  to  the  part  of  the  mouth  or  nasal  passage 
which  is  chiefly  concerned  in  their  production.  Thus 
we  have 

(a)  Labials  or  lip  consonants.  These  may  be  either  bi- 
labials,  e.  g.,  6,  p,  m,  w,  in  which  both  lips  are  instrumental 
in  forming  the  respective  sounds  ;  or  labio-dentals,  e.  g.,  /,  v, 
in  which  lips  and  teeth  are  the  main  obstructions. 

(6)  Alveolar,  or  tongue  and  gum  sounds.  Examples  are 
d,  t,  z,  s.  These  sounds  are  formed  by  pressing  the  tip  of  the 
tongue  against  the  gums  just  back  of  the  upper  front  teeth. 
They  are  sometimes  wrongly  called  dental  consonants,  on  the 
supposition  that  the  tongue  in  forming  them  is  placed  against 
the  upper  front  teeth ;  this,  however,  is  not  the  case  in  the 
normal  English  formation  of  these  sounds,  tho  the  French 
t  is  a  real  dental,  the  tongue  being  pressed  hard  against  the 
upper  teeth  in  the  pronunciation  of  it. 

(c)  Dental,   or  tooth   and   tongue   consonants.     In   the 
formation  of  this  sound,  found  in  English  only  in  th  as  in 
thine  or  father,  the  tip  of  the  tongue  is  pressed  against  the 
roots  of  the  upper  front  teeth. 

(d)  Palatals,  or  tongue  and  palate  consonants.     These 
consonants  are  usually  grouped  in  two  classes:    (1)  those 
formed  by  the  tongue  and  hard  palate,  called  front  palatals, 
as,  for  example,  g  in  give;  k  in  keen;  ch  in  chin;   dg  in 
ridge  ;  sh  in  sheen  ;  z  (spelled  s  or  z)  in  azure,  pleasure  ;  (2) 
those  formed  by  the  tongue  and  the  back  or  soft  palate, 
called  back  palatals,  or  gutturals,  or  velars,  as  in  g  in  gone  ; 
Jc  (written  c)  in  cough,  cold.     Note  carefully  the  difference 


110 


MODERN   ENGLISH 


between  the  initial  consonants  in  keen  and  cold ;  geese  and 
gold. 

(e)  Lingual,  or  tongue  consonants,  in  which  the  tongue  is 
chiefly  instrumental  in  forming  the  sounds,  as  in  /,  r.  There 
are  various  kinds  of  I  and  r  in  English,  but  I  is  usually  alveo- 
lar-lingual, that  is,  the  tongue  is  placed  against  the  upper 
gums,  and  r  is  usually  hard  palate-lingual. 

(/)  Nasal  or  nose  consonants,  in  the  formation  of  which 
the  nose  and  lips,  or  the  nose  and  some  other  part  of  the 
mouth,  are  instrumental.  Nasal  consonants  may  be  classified 
as  (1)  bilabial,  as  ra  in  man;  (2)  alveolar,  as  n  in  near ; 

(3)  front  palatal,  as  ng  in  king  (observe  that  ng  is  pronounced 
as  a  single  nasal  consonant,  not  two  consonants,  n  and  g)  ; 

(4)  back  palatal  or  guttural,  as  ng  in  long  (again  pronounced 
as  a  single  consonant). 

In  fully  describing  and  naming  a  consonant,  there- 
fore, it  will  be  observed  tbat  there  are  three  things  to 
be  noticed,  first,  whether  it  is  a  voiced  or  voiceless  con- 
sonant ;  second,  whether  it  is  a  stop  or  continuant;  and, 
third,  what  parts  of  the  vocal  organs  are  chiefly  instru- 
mental in  its  formation.  The  following  table  gives  a 
list  of  the  most  important  English  consonants  from 
these  three  points  of  view: 


Bila- 
bial. 

Labio- 
dental. 

Dental. 

Alveo- 
lar. 

Front 
palatal. 

Back 
palatal. 

Lingual. 

Nasal. 

Stops./ 

Voiced 

Voice- 
leas 

b 
P 

... 

... 

d 
t 

g(asin 
geete) 

k  (as  in 

keen) 

g  (as  in 
gold) 

k  (c)  (as 

in  cold) 

... 

•  t  • 

dg(asin 

• 

Voiced 

... 

T 

th(asin 
father) 

z  (as  in 
please) 

ridge) 
z  (as  in 

... 

Con- 

azure) 

tinu-  - 
ants. 

Voice- 

th(as 

shfasin 
sheen) 

less 

in  thin) 

ch  (as 

in  chin) 

ENGLISH   SOUNDS  111 

6.  Classification  of  Vowels.  The  vowels  lend  them- 
selves less  readily  to  description  and  classification  than 
the  consonants,  because  the  positions  and  movements  of 
the  organs  of  voice  in  the  production  of  vowels  are  less 
easily  observed  and  stated  than  they  are  in  the  produc- 
tion of  consonants.  Somewhat  loosely,  vowels  are  often 
spoken  of  as  (a)  front  palatal  vowels,  in  which  the 
voiced  sound  is  modified  by  narrowing  the  passage  of 
the  mouth  by  means  of  raising  the  tongue  towards  the 
hard  palate,  and  (b)  back  palatal  or  guttural  vowels, 
formed  further  back  in  the  mouth,  by  the  tongue  and 
the  soft  palate.  Front  palatal  vowels  are  a  (in  man) ; 
e  (in  let) ;  a  (in  hate) ;  ey  (in  they) ;  ay  (in  say) ;  i  (in 
kin) ;  i  (in  machine) ;  ee  (in  seen).  Back  palatal  or 
guttural  vowels  are  oo  (in  food) ;  oo  (in  wood,  good) ; 
o  (in  bone)]  o  (in  not);  i  (in  mine);  a  (in father);  a  (in 
fall).  A  loose  distinction  often  made  is  that  between 
close  and  open  vowels,  the  tongue  in  the  close  vowel 
being  raised  further  toward  the  roof  of  the  mouth  than 
in  the  open  vowel.  Thus  the  vowel  o  is  said  to  be  close 
in  note,  but  open  in  not;  the  vowel  e  is  said  to  be 
close  in  the  borrowed  word  fSte  (or  in  the  case  of  the 
same  sound  with  different  spelling,  in  the  native  words 
mate,  late,  etc.),  but  open  in  the  word  men.  The  mechan- 
ical device  of  placing  the  cedilla  beneath  the  vowel  to 
indicate  the  open  quality  is  sometimes  used,  as  in  9,  9. 
The  classification  of  vowels  as  close  and  open  is  not  a 
good  one,  however,  since  o  and  o,  e  and  e,  are,  so  far  as 
sound  goes,  which  is  the  essential  matter,  really  two 
quite  different  vowels,  tho  written  alike,  and  each, 
in  an  exact  system,  should  have  its  distinctive  name. 
Another  distinction  which  is  often  loosely  and  incor- 


112  MODERN  ENGLISH 

rectly  made  is  that  between  long  and  short  vowels. 
The  vowel  o  of  not  is  said  to  be  the  short  vowel,  the 
long  of  which  is  exemplified  in  note  ;  so  also  the  vowel 
of  met  is  said  to  be  the  short  e  sound,  the  vowel  of  they, 
the  long  e  sound.  But  an  examination  of  these  sounds 
will  show  that  o  of  not  is  not  merely  the  o  of  note  short- 
ened, nor  is  e  of  met  merely  the  shortened  sound  of  the 
vowel  of  they.  The  difference  is  not  merely  that  of 
length,  but  also  of  quality;  and  we  have  to  do  with 
two  entirely  separate  and  different  vowel  sounds  in  each 
case.  In  using  the  terminology  long  and  short,  care 
should  be  taken  that  the  vowels  so  described  are  really 
of  the  same  kind.  Thus  the  first  vowel  of  the  word 
motive  is  the  short  sound  of  the  vowel  in  note,  the  two 
sounds  differing  only  in  the  degree  to  which  they  are 
prolonged,  and  the  long  vowel  sound  of  fate  is  short 
in  the  first  syllable  of  the  compound  pay-roll. 

A  real  distinction  which  should  be  observed  is  that 
between  simple  vowels  and  diphthongs.  A  simple  vowel, 
as  its  name  indicates,  is  one  which  consists  of  only  one 
vowel  sound;  a  diphthong  is  a  double  sound  which 
begins  with  one  vowel  quality  and  shades  off  at  the  end 
into  another.  The  vowels  of  note,  of  fate,  of  food  are 
all  simple  vowels;  but  the  vowel  of  house,  now,  slough 
is  a  double  sound,  starting  with  the  sound  of  a  in  father, 
and  ending  with  the  sound  of  u,  giving  the  combination 
au  (so  spelled  in  German  haus,  laut,  etc.).  The  other 
English  diphthongs  are  the  vowel  of  try,  buy,  ride,  com- 
posed of  a  +  i,  equivalent  therefore  to  ai,  and  the 
diphthong  o  +  i,  that  is  oi,  as  exemplified  in  boil,  boy, 
coin.  It  should  be  noted  that  simple  vowels  are  some- 
times written  with  two  letters,  as,  for  example,  the 


ENGLISH    SOUNDS  113 

simple  vowel  in  great,  pair,  lead,  pay,  tho(uglt),  and 
many  others ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  diphthongs 
are  often  written  with  one  letter,  as  in  ride,  try,  etc. 
One  should  observe  always,  therefore,  the  sound  and 
not  the  spelling  in  determining  whether  a  vowel  is  a 
diphthong  or  not. 

7.  Alphabet  and  Sounds.  The  symbols  or  letters 
of  which  our  alphabet  is  composed  are,  it  is  obvious, 
quite  conventional  and  arbitrary.  There  is  no  inherent 
reason  why  the  symbol  T,  with  its  variant  forms  t  and  £$» 
or  the  symbol  D,  with  its  other  forms  d  and  jQ,,  should 
stand  each  for  its  own  sound.  So  far  as  the  appropriate- 
ness of  the  symbols  to  the  sounds  goes,  they  might  be 
interchanged  without  loss.  Originally  alphabetic  sym- 
bols may  have  had  some  peculiar  appropriateness  to  the 
sounds  which  they  represented,  either  as  a  sort  of  "  visible 
speech,"  indicating  the  position  of  the  vocal  organs  by 
the  shape  of  the  symbol,  or  as  "picture  writing,"  like  the 
hieroglyphics  of  the  Egyptians,  indicating  objects  which 
bore  definite  relations  to  the  various  sounds.  The 
English  alphabet,  however,  has  long  since  passed  out  of 
any  such  stage  of  development,  and  is  now  a  set  of  in- 
trinsically meaningless  symbols  to  which  specific  values 
are  arbitrarily  attached. 

It  is  also  obvious  that  the  number  of  sounds  used  in 
speaking  the  English  language  is  greater  than  the 
number  of  symbols  available  for  representing  sounds. 
A  conservative  estimate  would  make  the  number  of 
clearly  distinguishable  different  English  sounds  about 
forty ;  the  number  of  symbols  in  the  alphabet  is  twenty- 
six.  The  language,  therefore,  has  not  at  its  command  a 
sufficient  number  of  characters  to  represent  all  its  sounds, 

8 


114  MODERN   ENGLISH 

and  is  driven  consequently  to  use  the  same  symbol  for 
different  sounds,  as,  for  example,  the  vowel  a  in  the 
words  hat,  hate,  path,  bare,  ball,  about.  The  conven- 
tional symbols  of  the  alphabet,  it  is  thus  seen,  may  vary 
as  to  their  significance  within  certain  pretty  wide  limits. 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  sounds  of  the  language  them- 
selves, we  shall  find  them  in  many  ways  very  imperfectly 
and  inconsistently  represented.  Thus  we  may  have  a 
simple  sound  represented  by  two  symbols,  as  the  vowel 
ea  of  seat,  or  the  consonant  th  of  thing.  Or  the  same 
sound  may  be  represented  by  several  different  symbols 
or  groups  of  symbols,  as,  for  example,  the  sound  of  s  (<?) 
in  race  and  erase ;  or  of  k  in  call,  king,  quell,  shock,  box  ; 
or  the  vowel  sound  which  appears  in  the  words  late,  pay, 
great,  fail,  veil,  they,  fete.  Or  the  same  group  of  letters 
may  represent  such  various  values  as  ough  in  lough, 
through,  thought,  cough,  hiccough,  enough.  Letters  are 
frequently  used,  also,  without  any  value,  the  so-called 
silent  letters,  like  the  e  of  bare,  the  c  of  scissors,  the  k  of 
knife,  the  s  of  island,  aisle,  the  w  of  write,  the  g  of 
foreign,  sovereign. 

If  these  facts  are  held  in  mind,  we  shall  be  understood 
when  we  say  that  English  is  not  a  phonetic  language. 
It  is  of  course  true  that  our  alphabet  does  represent  for 
us  the  sounds  of  the  language ;  but  it  represents  these 
sounds  in  an  imperfect  and  inconsistent  way.  A  per- 
fectly phonetic  language  would  be  one  in  which  every 
sound  had  its  appropriate  symbol,  and  no  symbol  more 
than  its  single  value.  Needless  to  say,  neither  the 
English  language  nor  any  other  language  ever  in  prac- 
tical use  has  been  thus  perfectly  phonetic.  Languages 
vary  in  the  degree  of  consistency  and  completeness  with 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  115 

which  they  endeavor  to  represent  their  sounds,  and  the 
earlier  periods  of  English  were  much  more  sensitive  in 
this  respect  than  modern  English  is.  Of  the  modern 
European  languages,  Italian  is  the  most  phonetic,  French 
and  G  erman  coming  between  English  and  Italian  at  the 
two  extremes.  But  even  Italian  is  not  completely  pho- 
netic, and  all  we  can  say  of  the  existing  languages  is 
that  one  is  more  phonetic  than  another.  For  the  prac- 
tical uses  to  which  language  is  usually  put,  the  carrying 
of  a  complete  and  exact  system  of  sound  representation 
would  be  an  unnecessary  burden.  It  is  not  important 
that  every  minute  difference  of  sound  should  have  its 
own  particular  symbol,  since  the  language  would  be  made 
no  more  intelligible  thereby.  Practical  utility,  however, 
demands  that  a  language  be  phonetic  to  a  certain  degree, 
and  without  question  it  is  a  grave  defect  in  the  English 
language  that  the  gap  between  its  written  and  printed 
symbols,  that  is  its  spelling,  and  the  actual  sounds  of  the 
words  of  the  language,  is  so  great.  Indeed  the  values  of 
the  letters  of  our  ordinary  alphabet  are  so  various  and 
uncertain,  that  it  becomes  necessary  to  settle  beforehand 
upon  some  scheme  of  sound  representation  before  it  is 
possible  to  discuss  matters  which  have  to  do  with  sound 
changes,  pronunciation,  and  spelling.1 

8.  A  Phonetic  Alphabet.     The  purposes  for  which 
a  phonetic  alphabet  may  be  devised  are  various.     The 


1  English  has  an  adverb  too,  a  preposition  to,  and  a  numeral  two. 
What  shall  we  say  in  writing,  that  there  are  three  loo's,  or  three  to's,  or 
three  two's,  in  English?  In  fact  there  is  of  course  only  one  of  each.  The 
idea  we  want  to  express  is  that  there  is  a  single  phonetic  word-form  which 
has  three  logical  values ;  but  to  express  this  unequivocally,  we  need  to  be 
able  to  express  the  phonetic  form  of  the  words  merely  as  sound,  not  as 
one  word  or  the  other. 


116  MODERN  ENGLISH 

scientific  student  of  phonetics  may  elaborate  some 
scheme  whereby  the  minutest  shades  of  difference  in 
the  quality  and  stress  of  sounds  shall  be  indicated ;  such 
a  system  would  be  almost  phonographic  in  its  exactness. 
Or  the  "  phonetic  reformer  "  may  invent  a  "  practical " 
alphabet  which  he  would  have  take  the  place  of  our 
present  alphabet  in  daily  printing  and  writing.  The 
ideal  of  the  scientific  student  is  beyond  our  present 
purpose ;  and  the  vain  hope  of  the  phonetic  reformer  we 
may  set  aside  as  belonging  to  the  group  of  those  vision- 
ary projects,  the  realization  of  which  is  neither  possible 
nor  desirable.  But  the  modest  needs  of  the  every-day 
student  of  language  demand  also  some  system  of  pho- 
netic representation,  one  that  is  simple  and  intelligible, 
and  at  the  same  time  capable  of  recording  the  essential 
characteristics  of  English  sounds.  It  will  be  understood 
that  the  alphabet  which  is  here  presented  is  for  this 
purpose  ;  it  is  intended  merely  as  an  aid  in  the  discussion 
of  pronunciation,  of  spelling,  and  of  sounds  in  general.1 
The  alphabet  makes  use,  so  far  as  possible,  of  the  ordi- 
nary letters  of  our  English  alphabet.  Long  vowels  are 
indicated  by  the  circumflex  (A).  No  sound  has  more 
than  one  symbol,  and  no  symbol  has  more  than  one 
value.  The  number  of  sounds,  and  consequently  the 
number  of  symbols,  is  forty-five,  eighteen  being  simple 
vowels,  four  being  diphthongs,  and  twenty-three  being 
consonant  sounds.  Arranged  in  alphabetic  order,  they 
are  as  follows : 


l  The  alphabet  is  a  slightly  modified  form  of  that  recommended  in  the 
Report  of  a  Joint  Committee  representing  the  American  Philological  Associa- 
tion, and  the  Modern  Language  Association  of  America,  on  the  Subject  of  a 
Phonetic  English  Alphabet.  New  York,  1904. 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS 

LBTTM.  KKY-WOBDS. 

a  .....  (a)rt,  p(a)rt,  h(ea)rt,  f(a)ther, 

c(a)lm. 

a  .....  (a)rtistic,    h(o)t,  r(o)ck,  n(o)t. 

se  .....  b(a)re,  h(ei)r,  st(ai)r. 

se  .....  h(a)t,  m(a)tter,  h(a)s. 

d  .....  (a)sk,  p(a)th. 

b  .....  (b)e. 

d  .....  (d)o. 

e  .....  m(a)te,  th(ey),  s(ay). 

e  .....  m(e)t1 

f  .....  (f)ee. 

g  .....  (g)o- 


h  .....  (h)e. 

i  .....  mar(i)ne,  s(ee). 


e(=tj)  .....  (ch)ew. 

k  .....  (k)in. 

1  .....  (l)et. 

m  .....  (m)et. 

n  .....  (n)et. 

e  .....  f(a)ll. 

e  .....  (au)tuinnaL 

6  .....  n(o)te. 

0  .....  d(o)nation. 

P  .....  (P)it. 

r  .....  (r)at. 

s  .....  (s)et. 

1  .....  (sh)ip. 
t  .....  (t)en. 

i  For  practical  purposes  it  has  not  been  deemed  necessary  to  make  here 

the  distinction  between  close  and  open  e,  noted  above.    The  same  ap- 
plies to  i  and  u. 


118  MODERN   ENGLISH 

LETTER.  KIY-WOBDO. 


5  .....  (th)at. 

ti  .....  m(oo)d. 

u  .....  p(u)sh. 

u  .....  h(u)t. 

o  .....  (a)bout. 

v  .....  (v)at 

w  .....  (w)in. 

y        .....  (y)es. 

z  .....  (z)est. 

3  .....  a(z)ure,  plea(s)ure,  lei(s)ure. 

ai  .....  r(i)de,  s(i)gh,  (ey)e,  b(uy). 

au  .....  h(ou)se. 

ei  .....  b(oi)l. 

iu  .....  t(u)be. 

The  use  of  most  of  these  symbols  is  self-explanatory, 
over  half  being  exactly  as  one  would  most  readily  in- 
fer from  their  use  in  the  Modern  English  alphabet.  Of 
the  others,  however,  a  few  words  of  explanation  are 
needed.  In  the  first  place,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
symbols  £,  §,  i,  6,  u  have  what  is  known  as  their  conti- 
nental values,  that  is,  the  values  which  they  have  in  all 
the  European  languages  except  English,  and  which  in 
the  earlier  periods  of  English  they  had  also  in  that 
language.  The  vowel  a  has,  therefore,  the  value  of  the 
vowel  in  father,  e  that  of  the  vowel  oifate,  i  that  of  the 
second  vowel  of  machine,  6  that  of  note,  and  u  that  of 
food.  The  five  different  sounds  with  which  the  alphabet 
opens  seem  a  bit  confusing  at  first.  But  &,  as  in  at,  is 
our  familiar  sound,  found  in  numberless  words  like  cat, 
fat,  that,  immaculate,  infatuate,  etc.  The  long  value  of 
this  sound  appears  in  words  like  air,  there,  lair, 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  119 

pear,  etc.  The  value  of  &  is  the  broad  sound  which 
appears  in  father,  palm,  calm,  retard,  and  a  is  its  cor- 
responding short  sound.  The  vowel  intended  by  the 
symbol  d  is  a  transition  vowel  between  &  in  father  and  ge 
in  bare.  It  is  pronounced  by  many  Americans  in  words 
like  path,  bath,  grass,  master,  France,  glance,  raft,  laugh, 
calf,  that  is,  in  words  in  which  the  vowel  comes  before 
a  voiceless  continuant,  /,  s,  th,  or  a  nasal  followed  by  a 
voiceless  continuant.  In  some  communities,  however, 
the  vowel  in  these  words  is  pronounced  flat,  like  ge,  and 
in  others  it  is  pronounced  very  broad,  like  £  (see  §  11 
for  a  further  discussion  of  this  sound). 

The  symbol  rj  represents  a  nasalized  g,  as  in  sing,  thing. 
It  is  a  simple  sound,  altho  it  is  written,  in  our  conven- 
tional spelling,  with  the  two  letters  ng ;  if  these  two 
letters  were  actually  pronounced,  however,  we  should 
have  a  word  of  the  phonetic  form  sin-g9,  thin-g9.  In 
a  word  like  finger,  which  is  pronounced  fing-ger,  not 
fin-ger,  we  have  a  nasalized  g  (that  is,  rj)  followed  by 
the  regular  g.  The  different  sounds  here  described 
should  be  practiced  until  the  distinctions  are  perfectly 
clear. 

The  symbol  £  is  invented  to  express  the  continuant 
consonant  usually  represented  by  ch  in  the  regular 
alphabet.  A  phonetic  alphabet  should  have  its  symbols 
consist  of  but  single  letters,  and  it  was  necessary  there- 
fore to  invent  one  for  the  purpose  of  representing  this 
sound.  The  four  sounds  of  o  are  easily  distinguish- 
able. Other  examples  of  e  are  awe,  awful,  aught,  ought 
all,  lord,  form,  storm,  dog,  cloth.  The  corresponding 
short  sound  0  does  not  occur  frequently;  examples  are 
the  first  syllable  of  audacious,  autocratic,  auditor.  The  d 


120  MODERN  ENGLISH 

of  note,  boat,  vote,  loan,  snow,  hoe,  tho(ugh),  toll,  etc.,  is  a 
very  common  sound ;  the  corresponding  short  sound,  o,  is 
usually  found  in  dissyllables  or  polysyllables ;  examples 
are  the  first  syllable  of  poetic,  bohemian,  rotation,  co- 
operate, also  the  second  syllable  of  window,  furlough, 
borrow.  The  continuant  usually  represented  by  sh  in  the 
regular  alphabet  has  again  to  have  a  new  symbol,  J. 
The  symbols  J?  and  8,  borrowed  from  the  Old  English 
alphabet,  represent  respectively  the  voiceless  dental  con- 
tinuant, as  in  thin,  thick,  thing,  thought,  etc.,  and  the 
voiced  dental  continuant,  as  in  thee,  those,  their,  etc. 
The  two  sounds  represented  by  u  and  8  are  similar,  but 
should  be  distinguished.  The  sound  u  occurs  only  in 
stressed  syllables,  as  in  up,  but,  puff,  love,  above,  dull, 
courage.  The  sound  a,  known  as  "  weak  e"  is  an  interest- 
ing sound  of  wide  occurrence.  It  is  what  might  be  called 
the  indifferent  or  obscure  vowel,  and  is  the  sound  which 
all  other  vowels  tend  to  become  when  they  are  not  pro- 
nounced clearly  and  distinctly.  Vowels  are  especially 
liable  to  become  a  when  they  are  not  supported  by  the 
stress.  Thus  the  article  the  is  rarely  pronounced  fully, 
as  5£,  unless  for  some  special  reason  it  is  strongly 
stressed ;  usually  it  is  pronounced  Sa,  as  in  the  sentence 
I  saw  the  president  yesterday.  But  other  words  in  this  sen- 
tence are  likewise  slightly  stressed,  and  when  the  sen- 
tence is  somewhat  rapidly  spoken,  the  vowel  JT,  the 
second  and  third  vowel  of  president,  and  the  second 
vowel  of  yesterday,  all  tend  to  become  this  obscure  vowel. 
The  phonetic  transcription  of  this  sentence,  therefore,  as 
it  would  be  spoken  in  ordinary  colloquial  English,  is  as 
follows :  a  se  3a  Prezadant  yestarde*. 

For  the  purpose  of  further  study  of  the  alphabet  and 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  121 

practice  in  using  it,  a  part  of   Lincoln's   Gettysburg 
Address  is  here  given  with  its  phonetic  transcription : l 

"  Four  score  and  seven  years  ago  our  fathers  brought  forth 
on  this  continent  a  new  nation,  conceived  in  liberty  and 
dedicated  to  the  proposition  that  all  men  are  created  equal. 
Now  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  civil  war,  testing  whether 
that  nation,  so  conceived  and  so  dedicated,  can  long  endure. 
We  are  met  on  a  great  battle-field  of  that  war.  We  have 
come  to  dedicate  a  portion  of  that  field  as  a  final  resting- 
place  for  those  who  gave  their  lives  that  that  nation  might 
live.  It  is  altogether  fitting  and  proper  that  we  should  do 
this." 

fer  skor  and  sevan  yirz  ago  aur  faSarz  bret  fer)>  en  Sis 
kentinent  a  niu  nefan,  kansivd  in  libarti  and  dediketid  tu 
$a  prepazijan  Sat  el  men  ar  krietid  ikwal.  nau  wi  ar  ingejd 
in  a  gret  sivil  wer,  testirj  hweftar  Saet  nejan,  so  kansivd  send 
so  dediketid,  kaen  lerj  endiur.  wi  ar  met  en  a  gret  baetal-fild 
av  Sset  wer.  wi  haev  kum  tu  dediket  a  per  Jan  av  fleet  fild 
aez  a  fainal  restirj-ples  fer  $6z  hu  hir  gSv  Sser  laivz  flat  Saet 
nejan  mait  liv.  it  iz  eltugeftar  fitirj  and  prepar  Sat  wi  Jud 
du  Sis. 

To  one  unfamiliar  with  it,  a  phonetic  transcription 
such  as  the  above  seems  funny  at  first,  and  of  course  a 
good  deal  of  the  humor  of  dialect  stories  and  poems 
consists  in  an  attempted  phonetic,  or  partially  phonetic, 
transcription  of  actual  speech.  This  humorous  effect  is 
due  largely  to  the  novelty  of  the  new  forms,  which  in- 
trinsically are  obviously  no  more  humorous  than  the 
symbols  of  the  regular  alphabet.  That  which  is  novel 
seems  funny,  especially  when  we  already  have  a  habit  of 
mind  established  by  a  different  custom.  Thus  a  style 

1  Report  of  a  Joint  Committee,  p.  39. 


122  MODERN  ENGLISH 

of  hat  two  or  three  years  old  would  excite  laughter, 
altho  it  may  differ  comparatively  little  from  the  con- 
temporary style,  in  its  own  time  may  have  been  the 
height  of  the  fashion,  and  in  another  year  or  two  may 
again  become  the  correct  or  conventional  style.  Com- 
pare also  the  common  inclination  of  the  uneducated 
and  untraveled  to  regard  all  customs  and  habits  which 
differ  from  their  own  as  ridiculous. 

9.  Sound  Changes.  Sounds  are  the  least  stable  ele- 
ment in  language.  The  words  themselves,  the  order  of 
the  words,  the  written  or  printed  forms,  all  these,  tho 
they  are  subject  to  constant  change,  are  relatively  fixed 
and  permanent  as  compared  with  sounds.  The  most 
sensitive  part  of  language,  sounds  respond  delicately  to 
the  slightest  and  most  evanescent  influences.  It  is 
probable  that  if  complete  phonographic  records  could  be 
taken  of  the  speech  of  an  individual,  it  would  be  found 
that  no  phrase  or  sentence  phonetically  ever  exactly  re- 
peated itself.  We  may  compare  the  sound -material  of 
the  language  to  a  restless,  ever-fluctuating  ocean,  always 
in  its  essentials  the  same,  but  never  two  moments  the 
same  in  the  forms  assumed  by  the  elements  of  which  it 
is  composed.  It  is  of  the  nature  of  sound,  which  is  the 
mere  passing  breath  of  a  moment,  that  it  should  be 
difficult  to  hold  or  fix  sharply  in  the  memory;  and  it  is 
only  by  constant  practice  and  use  that  we  are  able  to 
keep  the  sounds  of  our  language  even  approximately  the 
same.  For,  with  all  our  effort,  we  do  not  succeed  in 
preventing  many  changes.  Day  by  day,  minute  by 
minute,  shif tings  of  our  sounds  are  taking  place,  and 
tho  most  of  these  are  too  minute  to  attract  attention 
at  the  time,  in  the  course  of  years,  of  a  generation  or  two, 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  123 

they  result  in  the  substitution  of  altogether  new  sounds 
for  the  old  ones.  Just  as  the  light  of  day  at  two  suc- 
cessive moments  appears  to  be  the  same,  but  is  not,  since 
it  is  by  the  accumulation  of  momentary  changes  that  the 
great  result  of  day  and  night  is  obtained,  so  our  speech, 
which  at  a  given  moment  we  think  we  hold  firmly  in 
our  grasp,  is  constantly  slipping  away  and  assuming 
new  forms. 

So  far  as  human  observation  goes,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
that  anything  is  gained  by  the  constant  series  of  changes 
which  are  affecting  the  phonetic  side  of  language.  No 
process  of  beneficent  evolution,  or  the  contrary,  has 
been  at  work  in  the  vast  majority  of  the  changes  in 
English  sound,  no  principles  of  development  reveal 
themselves.  In  this  respect  language  differs  from  its 
history  on  the  side  of  its  inflections  and  vocabulary. 
The  changes  in  the  English  inflectional  system  have  re- 
sulted in  a  greater  simplicity  and  efficiency  in  the  struc- 
ture of  the  English  language ;  and  the  development  of 
the  vocabulary  has  made  the  language  richer  and  more 
variously  expressive.  But  sound  changes  appear  to 
have  taken  place  largely  without  any  end  in  view,  merely 
because  it  is  the  nature  of  sound  to  be  impermanent  and 
variable. 

Many  of  the  changes  which  take  place  in  language 
sounds  are  so  slight  and  of  such  momentary  importance 
that  they  never  demand  consideration.  It  is  not  essen- 
tial to  intelligibility  that  the  sounds  of  language  should 
always  conform  to  what  we  may  regard  as  the  perfect 
types  of  the  sounds.  We  allow  a  considerable  latitude  in 
the  speech  of  individuals,  for  we  understand  when  words 
are  only  approximately  correctly  pronounced.  There  is? 


124  MODERN  ENGLISH 

therefore,  a  large  area  of  negligible  variation  in  the 
sounds  of  speech.  When  a  sound  change,  however,  is 
persistent,  so  that  it  affects  the  language  in  general, 
or  the  particular  language  of  a  community,  it  then 
becomes  matter  worthy  of  observation,  and,  so  far  as 
is  possible,  of  scientific  generalization.  Generaliza- 
tion of  this  sort,  based  on  the  observation  of  sound 
changes  which  have  proceeded  in  a  regular  fashion, 
are  known  as  phonetic  laws.  It  should  be  clearly  un- 
derstood, however,  that  phonetic  laws  are  laws  only 
in  the  sense  that  they  state  what  takes  place,  not  that 
they  imply  a  lawgiver  who  makes  a  law  which  they 
must  follow.  Like  the  laws  of  physics,  the  law  that 
night  succeeds  day,  or  that  water  when  frozen  expands, 
the  laws  of  sounds  are  based  entirely  upon  experiment 
and  observation. 

Sound  laws  are  therefore  general  habits  or  customs, 
and  a  discussion  of  why  sound  laws  should  arise  would 
be  a  discussion  of  why  and  how  general  habits  and  cus- 
toms are  formed.  Imitation  is  undoubtedly  the  most 
powerful  single  factor  in  bringing  about  uniformity  in 
the  use  of  language,  therefore  the  most  powerful  single 
factor  in  the  formation  of  linguistic  laws.  This  applies 
not  only  to  sounds  but  to  all  other  aspects  of  language. 
This  imitation  may  be  conscious  or  unconscious,  tho 
it  is  usually  the  latter.  Children,  for  example,  imitate 
the  sounds  and  the  words  which  they  habitually  hear, 
without  giving  any  thought  to  the  matter.  They  accept 
blindly  the  authority  of  their  elders,  and  it  is  only  adult 
people,  who  have  learned  to  observe  their  speech  and  to 
reason  about  it,  who  become  aware  of  the  changes  that 
are  taking  place.  But  even  among  adults  the  conscious 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  125 

attitude  of  mind  towards  language  is  relatively  rare. 
They  also  usually  form  their  habits  in  language  by  an 
unconscious  adaptation  to  the  familiar  use  about  them. 
It  is  obvious  that  no  discredit  attaches  to  imitation  of 
the  kind  we  are  describing.  Every  one  must  be  imita- 
tive to  a  very  large  extent  in  his  use  of  speech,  because 
speech  is  a  common  social  possession  and  not  the  right 
of  any  one  individual.  There  could  be  no  worse  kind  of 
speech  than  one  which  was  altogether  original,  altogether 
different  from  the  speech  of  others,  because  such  speech 
would  be  unintelligible. 

Many  sound  changes  are  due  in  their  origins  to  or- 
ganic causes,  such  as  the  modification  of  the  physical 
organs  of  sound-production.  Thus  it  is  a  general  and 
obvious  principle  that  a  syllable  which  bears  a  heavy 
stress  is  likely  to  be  pronounced  more  sharply  and  dis- 
tinctly than  it  would  be  if  it  bore  only  a  light  stress. 
Or  the  rapidity  with  which  one  speaks  will  usually  be 
observed  to  affect  very  markedly  the  clearness  and  dis- 
tinctness of  the  sounds.  Changes  which  are  due  to  such 
natural  tendencies  as  these  affect  the  people  altogether ; 
they  tend  to  become  general,  therefore,  without  imita- 
tion, because  the  same  natural  law  operates  upon  all 
equally.  It  will  be  necessary  now  to  examine  the  changes 
in  sounds  more  fully  from  these  two  points  of  view,  the 
imitative  and  the  organic  tendencies  towards  change  in 
the  sounds  of  speech. 

10.  Imitative  Sound  Changes.  It  is  only  when  we 
look  back  over  the  history  of  English  sounds  and  observe 
them  in  a  long  perspective  that  we  can  see  the  results  of 
imitative  sound  laws  on  a  large  scale.  When  we  com- 
pare the  system  of  sounds  used  in  Old  English,  however. 


126  MODERN   ENGLISH 

with  that  used  in  Modern  English,  we  see  that  there  has 
been  an  almost  complete  displacement.  This  is  especially 
true  of  the  vowels,  which  are  always  much  less  stable 
than  the  consonants,  our  Modern  English  consonants 
differing  on  the  whole  but  little  from  their  use  fifteen 
hundred  years  ago.  The  vowels,  however,  have  under- 
gone great  changes.  Words  which  in  Old  English,  for 
example,  had  the  vowel  a,  by  the  Middle  English  period 
had  changed  this  vowel  to  6,  and  Modern  English  has 
gone  a  step  further  and  changed  the  Middle  English  6 
into  6\  Thus  Old  English  stan  (stan),  became  Middle 
English  ston  (sten),  and  Modern  English  stone  (st6n). 
Following  the  same  phonetic  law,  Old  English  ban  (ban) 
became  Middle  English  Ion  (be"n),  Modern  English  bone 
(bon) ;  Old  English  bat  (bat)  became  Middle  English  lot 
(bet),  Modern  English  boat  (b6t).  Other  instances  of  the 
operation  of  the  same  rule,  or  law,  are  the  following : 

OLD  ENGLISH.  MIDDLI  ENGLISH.  MODERN  ENGLISH. 

gan  (gan)  gon  (g©n)  go  (g6) 

wrat  (wrat)1  rvrot  (wret)  wrote  (r6t) 

Jam  (fam)  fom  (fern)  foam  (fom) 

blawan  (blawan)  blowen  (blewen)  blow  (bio) 

papa  (papa)  pope  (p©pa)  pope  (p6p) 

wa  (wa)  wo  (w0)  woe  (wo) 

Other  vowels  have  changed  just  as  completely.  Thus 
Old  English  6,  omitting  the  transition  stages,  has  become 
regularly  u  in  Modern  English,  as  illustrated  by  the  fol- 
lowing examples : 

1  The  w  in  wr,  as  well  as  the  h  in  hi,  hr,  were  all  pronounced  in  the  OW 

English  period. 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  127 

OLD  ENGLISH.  MODBEN  ENGLISH. 

mod  (mod)  mood  (mud) 

bloma  (bloma)  bloom  (blum) 

col  (kol)  cool  (kul) 

don  (don)  do  (dft) 

hrof  (hrof)  roof  (ruf) 

scok  (skoh)  ^oe  (Jii) 

To  complete  the  list  of  the  long  vowels,  Old  English 
§  has  become  the  Modern  English  i;  Old  English  i 
has  become  the  Modem  English  diphthong  ai ;  and  Old 
English  u  has  become  the  Modern  English  diphthong  au. 
These  three  groups  of  changes  are  illustrated  by  the 
following  words: 

OLD  ENSLISH.  MoDimx  EHOLIIB. 

cen  (k§n)  keen  (kin) 

seon  (s§on)  see  (si) 

med  (m§d)  meed  (mid) 

slepan  (slepan)  sleep  (slip) 

pipe  (pipe)  pipe  (paip) 

hwit  (hwit)  white  (hwait) 

tvid  (wid)  wide  (waid) 

is  (is)  ice  (ais) 

hus  (bus)  house  (haus) 

mu\  (mup)  mouth  (maup) 

hlud  (hlftd)  loud  (laud) 

bru  (bru)  brow  (brau) 

If  we  should  continue  our  examination  of  the  other 
vowels  and  diphthongs,  short  and  long,  of  the  Old  Eng- 
lish period,  we  should  find  that  nearly  every  one  of  them 
had  shifted  greatly  from  its  original  form,  that  the  origi- 
nal form  had  become  lost,  and  that  through  imitation  a 


128  MODERN  ENGLISH 

new  form  had  become  general  and  regular.  Just  who  it 
was  who  started  each  specific  change,  and  for  what  rea- 
son, it  is  impossible  to  say.  It  is  not  probable  that  at 
any  period  one  could  put  his  hand  on  a  definite  individ- 
ual, or  group  of  individuals,  and  say  that  this  person  or 
that  was  responsible  for  a  specific  change.  The  changes 
advanced  undoubtedly  by  minute  degrees,  and  the  man 
of  the  Old  English  or  the  Middle  English  period  was  at 
no  time  conscious  that  -his  speech  was  changing  to  such 
an  extent  that  a  few  hundred  years  later  it  would  seem 
to  his  descendants  almost  entirely  a  different  language 
from  their  own.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  our 
own  speech  to-day  is  much  more  stable  than  was  that  of 
the  Old  English  period.  Unconsciously  to  ourselves  we 
are  being  drifted  here  and  there  on  those  currents  of 
speech-sounds  which  our  descendants  two  or  three  hun- 
dred years  hence  will  be  able  to  trace  through  their 
curves  and  meanderings,  and  thus  to  formulate  and  gen- 
eralize into  phonetic  laws,  as  now  we  formulate  the 
changes  in  the  speech  of  our  Old  English  ancestors.  In 
some  few  instances,  however,  we  can  trace  changes  and 
tendencies  in  our  contemporary  speech,  and  these  deserve 
a  few  words  of  special  consideration.  Before  passing  on 
to  the  consideration  of  contemporary  imitative  sound 
changes,  it  may  be  interesting  to  examine  a  passage  of 
Old  English  and  the  same  passage  in  Middle  English  in 
their  respective  phonetic  forms,  and  to  compare  these 
earlier  sounds  of  the  language  with  those  of  Modern 
English.  For  this  purpose  we  may  choose  a  passage 
from  the  New  Testament,  giving  it  first  in  an  Old  Eng- 
lish version,  made  before  the  year  1000,  accompanied  by 
a  literal  translation  and  a  phonetic  transcription,  and 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS 


129 


then  the  same  passage  in  Wycliffe's  version,  made  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  Old  Eng- 
lish version  is  as  follows : 


Da  hi  aet  ham  waeron,  he 
ahsode  hi:  "Hwaet  sm6ade  g§ 
be  wege  ?  " 

Ond  hi  suwodon.  Witod- 
llce  hi  on  wege  sme"adon 
hwylc  hyra  yldost  waere. 

pa  he  saet,  he  clypode  hi 
twelfe  ond  saede  him:  "Gif 
eower  hwylc  wyle  beon  fyr- 
mest,  beo  se  eaftmodust  ond 
eower  ealra  pen." 

pa  nam  he  anne  cnapan 
ond  gesette  on  hyra  middele. 
pa  he  hine  beclypte,  he  salde 
him : 

"Swa  hwylc  swa  anne  of 
pus  geradum  cnapum  on  mi- 
num  naman  onfehS,  se  onfehS 
me.  And  se  pe  me  onfehS, 
he  ne  onfehS  me,  ac  pone  pe 
me  sende."1 — Mark  ix,  33-37. 


pa  hi  aet  hsim  waeron,  h§ 
aksode  hi:  "hwaet  smaaade 
ye  be  weye  ?  " 

Ond  hi  suwodon.  Witod- 
like  hi  en  weye  smaaadon 
hwilk  hira  ildost  w£re. 

pa  he  saet,  he  klipode  hi 
twelve  ond  s£de  him  :  "  Yif 
^ower  hwilk  wile  be"on  fir- 
mest, beo  s§  s^aSmodust  end 
eower  fealra  }>e*n." 

pa  nam  h§  ^nne  knapan 
end  yes6tte  en  hira  middele. 
pa  h§  hine  bekli'pte,  b§  saade 
him: 

uSwa  hwilk  sw§,  anne  ef 
pus  yera'dum  knapum  en  mi- 
num  naman  enfe'hp,  se  en- 
feyhp  m8.  6nd  se  5e  me 
onf§'hp,  h§  ne  enf^rhp  m§, 
ak  pone  Se  m§  sende."2 


1  From  Skeat,  The  Holy  Gospels  in  Anglo-Saxon,  Northumbrian  and  Old 
Mercian  Versions,  Cambridge,  1871-1887.    Literally  translated  this  goes  as 
follows  :  "  When  they  at  home  were,  he  asked  them  :  '  What  considered 
ye  by  the  way  ?  '     And  they  were  silent  (suwodon).     Verily  they  on  the 
way  considered  which  of  them  eldest  (i.  e.,  most  honorable)  was.     When 
he  sat,  he  called  them  twelve  and  said  to  them :  '  If  of  you  any  will  be 
foremost,  be  he  humblest  and  of  you  all  servant.'    Then  he  took  a  boy  and 
set  him  (the  pronoun  is  not  expressed)  in  their  midst.    When  he  embraced 
him,  he  said  to  them :  '  Whosoever  one  of  such  boys  (of  pus  geradum 
cnapum)  in  my  name  receives,  he  receives  me.    And  he  who  receives  me, 
he  receives  not  me,  but  him  who  sent  me.'" 

2  The  stress  is  always  on  the  first  syllable  of  diisyllabic  and  polysyllabic 
words,  unless  otherwise  indicated. 

9 


130 


MODERN  ENGLISH 


The  same  passage  from  the  Wycliffe  Bible  is  as  fol- 
lows: 


And  whanne  thei  weren  in 
the  hous,  he  axide  hem : 
uWhat  tretiden  ye  in  the 
weie?" 

And  thei  weren  stille.  For 
thei  disputiden  among  hem  in 
the  weie,  who  of  hem  schulde 
be  grettest. 

And  he  sat,  and  clepide 
the  twelue,  and  seide  to  hem: 
"If  ony  man  wole  be  the 
firste  among  you,  he  schal  be 
the  laste  of  alle,  and  the 
mynyster  of  alle. 

And  he  took  a  child,  and 
sette  hym  in  the  myddil  of 
hem.  And  whanne  he  hadde 
biclippid  hym,  he  seide  to 
hem, 

Who  euer  resseyueth  oon 
of  such  children  in  my  name, 
he  resseyueth  me.  And  who 
euer  resseyueth  me,  he  res- 
seyueth not  me  aloone,  but 
hym  that  sente  me.1 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  add  the  same  passage  in  the 
King  James  version : 

33  And  being  in  the  houfe,  he  afked  them,  What  was  it 
that  yee  difputed  among  your  selues  by  the  way. 

1  From  The  New  Testament  in  English  according  to  the  Version  by  John 
Wycliffe  about  A.  D.  1380  and  revised  by  John  Purvey  about  A.  D.  1388. 
Ed.  Forshall  aud  Madden,  Oxford,  1879. 


and  hwana  8e  weran  in  Sa 
hus,  he  aksida  hem :  "  hwat 
tretidan  ye  in  "Sa  weya  ?  " 

and  Se  weran  stila.  For  S3 
disputidan  amer)  hem  in  Sa 
weya,,  hwe  ef  hem  Julda  bd 
gretast. 

and  he  sat,  and  kle*pida  Sa 
twelva,  and  s§da  to  hem :  if 
eni  man  wela  be  Sa  firsta  amerj 
iu,  he  Jal  be  Sa  lasta  ef  alia, 
and  (5a  ministar  ef  alia. 

and  h§  tok  a  cild,  and  seta 
hi ui  in  Sa  midil  ef  hem.  and 
hwana  he  hada  biklipid  him, 
h§  seda  to  hem, 

hwe  evar  res^vap  en  ef 
sue  eildran  in  mi  nama,  h6  re- 
sevap  me.  and  hwe  evar  re- 
s§vep  me,  he  reseva)?  net  me 
alone,  but  him  Sat  senta  me. 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  131 

34  But  they  held  their  peace,  For  by  the  way  they  had 
difputed  among  themselues  who  should  be  the  greateft. 

35  And  he  fate  downe,  and  called  the  twelue  and  faith 
unto  them,  If  any  man  defire  to  be  firft,  the  fame  fhall  be 
laft  of  all,  and  feruant  of  all. 

36  And  he  tooke  a  child,  and  fet  him  in  the  midft  of 
them ;  &  when  he  had  taken  him  in  his  arms,  he  faid  unto 
them, 

37  Whofoeuer  fhall  receiue  one  of  fuch  children  in  my 
Name,  receiueth  me ;  and  whof oeuer  fhall  receiue  me,  receiu- 
eth  not  me,  but  him  that  fent  me.1 

11.  Contemporary    Imitative    Sound    Changes. 

One  of  the  most  frequently  discussed  instances  of  con- 
temporary sound  change  is  that  which  centers  about  the 
pronunciation  of  certain  words  containing  the  vowel  ae 
or  &.  Without  attempting  to  follow  tbe  history  of  these 
sounds  through  the  whole  course  of  their  development, 
we  shall  merely  point  out  the  fact  that  they  have  been 
constantly  changing,  that  the  word  path  was  pronounced 
p&p  by  one  generation,  pSJ?  by  another,  and  pdp  by  still 
another.  Generally,  the  feeling  which  determined  the 
use  of  one  sound  or  the  other  seems  to  have  been  that 
the  particular  sound  chosen  was  more  "  refined  "  than 
the  others ;  and  it  is  a  curious  fact  that  each  of  the  three 
sounds  has  at  different  times  been  elevated  to  this  posi- 
tion of  eminence.  Thus  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  nine- 
teenth century,  in  London  the  pronunciation  of  the 
vowel  of  words  like  path,  past,  ask,  glass,  bath,  dance, 
etc.,  as  ge,  like  the  vowel  of  hat,  cat,  etc.,  lengthened, 

1  The  Holy  Bible,  London,  1611.  1st  ed.  of  the  King  James  Version. 
The  pronunciation  is  approximately  the  same  as  that  of  Modern  English. 
Notice  the  large  number  of  silent  letters  as  compared  with  the  Middle 
English  and  the  Old  English  pronunciation. 


132  MODERN  ENGLISH 

was  regarded  as  elegant,  and,  of  course,  by  those  to 
whom  it  was  strange,  as  affected.  This  is  well  illustrated 
by  Leigh  Hunt's  description  of  a  night  watchman,  who 
was  affecting  the  speech  of  his  betters.  "Of  varieties 
among  watchmen,"  says  Hunt, l  u  we  remember  several. 
One  was  a  dandy  watchman  who  used  to  ply  at  the  top 
of  Oxford  Street,  next  the  park.  He  had  a  mincing  way 
with  it,  pronouncing  the  a  in  the  word  past  as  it  is  in 
hat,  making  a  little  preparatory  hem  before  he  spoke, 
and  then  bringing  out  his  ' past  ten9  in  a  style  of  genteel 
indifference." 

A  few  years  later,  the  elegant  pronunciation  of  this 
sound  in  this  country  became  established  as  &,  that  is,  the 
broad  sound  of  a  in  father.  This  was  undoubtedly  due, 
in  the  main,  to  the  influence  of  the  speech  of  New  Eng- 
land, particularly  Boston,  which,  owing  to  its  literary 
position  during  the  lifetime  of  Longfellow,  Emerson, 
Hawthorne,  Lowell,  and  the  other  great  figures  of  the 
first  flowering  period  of  American  literature,  was  often 
regarded  as  the  seat  of  culture  in  America.  From 
Boston,  where  it  was  a  normal  and  usual  pronunciation, 
the  broad  sound  a  passed  over  by  imitation  to  the  speech 
of  other  communities.  Thus  Richard  Grant  White, 2  a 
native  of  New  York  and  the  arbiter  of  taste  in  his  day, 
goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  "The  full,  free,  unconscious 
utterance  of  the  broad  ah  sound  of  a  is  the  surest  indica- 
tion, in  speech,  of  social  culture  which  began  at  the 
cradle."  To  a  certain  extent  the  educated  American 
public  seemed  to  agree  with  this  astonishing  dictum ; 
conscientious  speakers,  if  they  did  not  have  it  naturally, 

1   Walks  Home  by  Night.     The  Companion,  Feb.  6,  1828. 

*    Words  and  Their  Uses,  Chapter  III,  p.  50  (New  York,  1898). 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  183 

tried  to  cultivate  this  broad  ah  sound  which  was  to  be 
the  test  of  social  culture,  and  it  was,  and  still  is,  to  some 
extent,  taught  in  schools  as  the  only  correct  and  elegant 
pronunciation.  But  the  public  was  not  prepared  to  go 
the  whole  way,  and  instead  of  the  full,  broad  &  as  in 
father,  it  has  now  shown  a  tendency  to  compromise  on  a 
vowel  between  se  of  hat  lengthened,  and  &  of  father,  a 
vowel  for  which  we  use  the  symbol  d.  This  vowel,  which 
has  been  well  described  as  a"  refined  transition  "  between 
£  and  se,  is  the  one  which  is  now,  or  is  tending  to  become, 
the  natural  and  normal  use  of  certain  communities  in 
America,  chiefly  in  the  East,  in  words  like  path,  past, 
glass,  master,  dance,  glance,  plant,  answer,  etc.,  and 
which  is  largely  imitated  by  speakers  in  communities  in 
which  the  natural  and  native  pronunciation  of  the  vowel 
in  these  words  is  5*3.  Whether  the  vowel  d  will  ever 
become  natural  and  general  all  over  the  country,  or 
whether  the  pendulum  will  swing  back  and  26  or  & 
become  the  refined  and  imitated  pronunciations  again, 
only  he  can  foretell  who  knows  how  to  predict  the 
whims  and  vagaries  of  fashion. 

The  question  is  often  asked,  Which  of  these  three  pro- 
nunciations is  the  "  correct "  one,  pee]?,  or  p£p,  or  pdp  ? 
Since  the  very  broad  pronunciation  of  £  is  rarely  heard 
now  or  advocated,  in  any  community,  we  may  eliminate 
it  and  reduce  the  choice  to  one  between  p&J?  and  pdp. 
If  the  preceding  discussion  has  been  followed  and 
understood,  it  will  be  apparent  that  it  is  not  necessary 
to  choose  between  the  two  pronunciations,  that  one  is 
not  correct  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  but  that  both 
may  be  equally  correct.  A  phonetic  rule  or  law,  it  will 
be  remembered,  was  defined  as  a  generalization  based  on 


134  MODERN  ENGLISH 

observation  of  the  actual  use  of  the  language,  apart  from 
any  notion  of  a  lawgiver  who  establishes  this  or  that  as 
the  law  of  language.  Now  if  we  observe  the  actual  use 
or  custom  of  the  language,  we  shall  see  that  some  people 
or  some  communities  say  p&p  and  others  say  pop,  and 
further  that  the  question  of  good  English  or  bad  English, 
that  is,  of  correctness,  does  not  enter  here,  unless  we 
assume  arbitrarily  that  one  must  be  right  and  the  other 
must  be  wrong.  The  question,  however,  is  not  one  of 
right  and  wrong,  but  merely  of  two  differing  customs. 
In  cases  of  this  sort  one's  own  individual  preference  and 
taste  must  decide.  If  some  speakers  prefer  peep  and 
others  pap,  the  question  of  the  one  side  giving  up  in 
favor  of  the  other  must  depend  entirely  on  the  weight  of 
authority  which  the  one  is  willing  to  grant  to  the  other. 
Each  must  decide  for  himself  which  law  or  custom  he 
wishes  to  follow. 

Another  vowel  sound  as  to  which  the  question  of 
imitation,  that  is,  of  choice  between  differing  customary 
sounds,  arises,  is  the  sound  of  short  open  o  in  words  like 
log,  dog,  fog,  stalk,  bog.  The  usual  tendency  in  America 
is  to  pronounce  the  vowel  of  these  words  as  e,  i.  e.,  deg, 
feg,  stek,  beg.  In  some  communities,  however,  and  by 
some  speakers,  the  words  are  pronounced  with  a  sound 
exactly  equivalent  to  a,  as  in  what,  watch,  quality,  follow- 
ing thus  the  pronunciation  of  words  like  not  (nat),  rock 
(rak),  hot  (hat),  cob  (kab),  stop  (stap).  Their  phonetic 
form  according  to  this  pronunciation  would  therefore  be 
dag,  fag,  stak,  bag.  On  the  other  hand,  by  imitation  of 
the  pronunciation  deg,  feg,  etc.,  this  quality  of  the 
sound  passes  over  into  words  like  not,  hot,  rock,  stop, 
which  are  then  pronounced  net,  hot,  rek,  step. 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  135 

Still  another  group  of  words  may  be  cited  in  illustra- 
tion, words  like  roof,  root,  soot,  hoof,  hoop,  and  others. 
By  some,  perhaps  most,  speakers  these  words  are  pro- 
nounced with  the  vowel  u,  as  in  mood,  tool,  moon,  goose, 
etc.,  their  phonetic  form  then  being  ruf,  rut,  sut,  huf, 
hup,  etc.  Other  speakers  pronounce  these  words  with 
an  open  short  u-sound,  u,  the  sound  of  the  vowel  in  put, 
foot,  good,  hood,  stood,  and  many  other  words.  Accord- 
ing to  this  pronunciation,  their  phonetic  form  would  be 
ruf,  rut,  sut,  huf,  hup,  etc.  What  the  final  outcome  will 
be  in  the  case  of  these  three  pairs  of  sounds,  se  and  d,  e 
and  a,  u  and  u,  depends  entirely  upon  the  extent  to 
which  imitation  takes  place.  Perhaps  in  time  all  words 
containing  the  a- vowel  before  a  continuant  consonant 
may  come  to  be  pronounced  alike,  either  as  se  or  d ;  like- 
wise, all  words  containing  the  o-vowel  may  come  to  be 
pronounced  as  e,  not,  hot,  got,  rock,  thus  becoming  net, 
het,  get,  rek,  or  as  a,  dog,  fog,  log,  thus  becoming  dag, 
fag,  lag;  and  all  words  containing  the  oo- vowel  may 
settle  in  the  pronunciation  u,  put,  foot,  good,  stood,  be- 
coming general  as  put,  fut,  gud,  stud  (a  pronunciation 
which  is  now  a  common  one  in  Scotland),  or  on  the  pro- 
nunciation u,  soot,  hoof,  root,  mood,  goose,  thus  becoming 
sut,  huf,  rut,  mud,  gus.  Or  the  law  of  imitation  may 
not  be  strong  enough  to  bring  about  uniformity  of 
usage  in  any  of  the  three  instances,  in  which  case  we 
shall  continue  as  we  are  at  present,  some  speakers  using 
one  sound  and  some  speakers  the  other.  This  will 
be  the  most  likely  state  of  affairs  so  long  as  the  different 
sounds  are  felt  to  be  equally  correct,  that  is,  so  long  as 
they  are  all  used  by  speakers  who  must  be  grouped  with 
the  class  of  the  educated  and  refined.  If,  however,  for 


136  MODERN  ENGLISH 

some  reason  or  other,  the  pronunciation  dag,  or  the  pro- 
nunciation ruf,  should  come  to  be  regarded  as  less  ele- 
gant than  deg  and  ruf,  just  as  at  present  there  is  a  strong 
tendency  to  regard  the  pronunciation  pap  as  more  ele- 
gant than  the  pronunciation  p&J>,  the  likelihood  is  that 
dag  and  ruf  would  be  given  up  entirely  in  favor  of  deg 
and  ruf.  Of  the  three  groups  of  words,  the  one  conse- 
quently concerning  which  it  is  safest  to  prophesy  is  the 
path-glass-ask-dance-group,  because  the  law  of  imitation 
here  is  given  a  special  direction  by  reason  of  the  some- 
what special  favor  in  which  the  one  sound  is  held. 

A  group  of  words  which  at  present  show  a  tendency 
towards  sound  change,  but  in  which  the  law  of  imitation 
meets  with  some  restraining  opposition,  is  that  consisting 
of  words  like  tube,  duke,  due,  Tuesday,  new,  and  others. 
Many  speakers  pronounce  these  words  with  the  sound  of 
u,  giving  thus  tub,  duk,  du,  tusde,  nu,  like  true,  fruit, 
dew,  rule,  rude  (after  1  and  r  the  sound  is  always  u,  not 
iu),  that  is  tru,  friit,  du,  ml,  rud.  This  pronunciation  is 
more  generally  heard  in  words  of  more  than  one  syllable, 
as  induce,  produce,  duty,  etc.,  than  it  is  in  monosyl- 
lables. Yet  both  in  monosyllables  and  in  polysyllables 
it  may  be  frequently  observed,  even,  it  may  be  pointed 
out,  in  the  speech  of  persons  who  think  they  always 
pronounce  the  ifi.  sound,  as  tiub,  diuk,  diu,  tiusde,  niu, 
prodius,  etc.  There  is,  among  people  who  attach  much 
importance  to  traditional  and  dogmatic  rules,  a  strong  feel- 
ing that  the  u  pronunciation  in  tub,  dftk,  etc.,  is  wrong, 
or  even  vulgar.  The  only  right  pronunciation,  they  say, 
is  tiub,  diuk,  etc.  But  is  tub  "incorrect''?  If  it  is  a 
widely  occurring  pronunciation,  as  our  observation  at- 
tests, then  it  must  be  one  of  the  laws  or  customs  of  the 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  187 

language.  But  if  it  is  a  custom  of  the  language,  it  has 
the  same  kind  of  authority  as  tiub,  which  itself  becomes 
"  correct "  only  by  being  a  law  or  custom  of  speech.  Nei- 
ther has  any  other  authority  than  that  which  it  acquires 
through  the  habits  or  customs  of  those  who  speak  the 
language.  The  question  of  choice  is  again  the  question 
of  which  group  of  speakers,  that  is,  which  habit  or  custom, 
one  wishes  to  follow.  If  one  observes  that  the  pronun- 
ciation tub  is  the  habitual,  customary,  and  unaffected 
speech  of  his  linguistic  community,  one  need  have  no 
hesitation  in  following  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  accord- 
ing to  his  observation,  tub  is  a  pronunciation  which  is 
characteristic  of  the  uneducated  speaker  and  is  heard 
only  from  such  speakers,  his  choice  is  equally  easy  to 
make.  The  difficulty  and  the  duty,  in  both  instances,  is 
to  make  sure  that  the  observations  upon  which  one's 
judgments  are  based  are  real  and  not  prejudiced,  and  are 
sufficiently  extensive  to  justify  a  generalization.  Above 
all  they  should  be  derived  not  from  the  traditional  state- 
ments of  books,  but  from  direct  observation  of  actual 
practice. 

A  few  further  stray  instances  of  contemporary  sound 
changes  may  be  cited  as  illustrative  of  the  kind  of  ques- 
tions which  continually  arise  for  decision.  Among  old- 
fashioned  people  one  often  hears  the  pronunciation  of 
the  word  deaf  as  dif,  the  usual  conventional  pronunci- 
ation now  being  def.  The  pronunciation  dif,  however, 
is  historically  justifiable,  the  vowel  having  the  same 
origin  as  the  vowel  in  sheaf  (Jif),  deep  (dip),  and  believe 
(biliv),  and  formerly  it  was  in  good  current  use  among 
educated  as  well  as  uneducated  speakers.  Through 
some  whim  or  fashion  of  the  moment,  which  now  has 


138  MODERN   ENGLISH 

been  forgotten,  the  pronunciation  def  managed  to  creep 
in,  was  generally  imitated,  and  thus  has  now  become 
the  general,  and  in  that  sense  the  correct,  pronunciation. 
The  pronunciation  dif,  however,  still  persists  as  a  sur- 
vival in  the  speech  of  old-fashioned  people,  and,  since 
they  are  always  slower  in  arriving  at  imitative  inno- 
vations than  the  educated,  it  persists  also  in  the  speech 
of  the  "  ignorant "  and  "  uneducated." 

There  is  at  present  some  tendency  to  discriminate 
between  the  use  of  rise  as  a  verb  and  as  a  noun ;  in  the 
former  case  the  word  is  pronounced  raiz,  in  the  latter, 
rais,  following  the  analogy  of  words  like  use  as  noun 
(ius)  and  as  verb  (iuz);  device  (divais),  devize  (divaiz). 
This  change,  however,  is  not  at  all  general,  and  is  chiefly 
in  the  hands  of  more  or  less  conscious  and  affected  users 
of  the  language.  The  same  is  true  of  the  two  pronun- 
ciations of  either  and  neither  as  iSar,  niSar,  and  aiSar, 
naiSar.  In  all  communities  in  America  the  pronunci- 
ation, iSar,  nitter,  is  by  far  the  more  general  and  usual, 
the  second  pronunciation  being  but  rarely  natural.  The 
question  of  correctness  and  choice  between  the  two  is 
again  to  be  decided  entirely  by  one's  preference.  One 
who  wishes  his  customs  of  speech  to  be  normal  and 
inconspicuous  will  generally  choose  to  say  iftar,  niftar; 
one  who  prefers  a  slight  mannerism  of  speech,  who 
affects  differences  of  speech  that  will  distinguish  him 
from  others,  is  at  liberty  to  choose  aiSar,  naiSar.  The 
situation  is  somewhat  similar  in  the  instance  of  the  two 
pronunciations  of  tomato  as  tom§to  and  tomato.  Both 
pronunciations  are  in  good  natural  use  in  different  sec- 
tions of  the  country,  tho  the  pronunciation  tometo  is 
by  far  the  more  common.  The  second  pronunciation, 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  139 

tomato,  becomes  an  affectation  only  when  it  is  assumed 
by  persons  whose  normal  pronunciation  is  tometo  for 
the  sake  of  distinguishing  their  speech  from  that  of 
their  environment.  It  is  clear  that  it  would  be  a  much 
more  reasonable  and  admirable  endeavor  for  a  speaker 
to  strive  to  adapt  his  speech  always  to  the  use  of  his 
environment  than  to  search  out  usages  in  speech  that 
will  set  him  off  and  distinguish  him  as  different  from 
his  environment. 

12.  Dialect.  When,  through  the  process  of  imita- 
tion, the  speech  of  a  certain  community  acquires  char- 
acteristics peculiar  to  that  community,  which  thus 
distinguish  the  speech  of  the  community  from  that 
of  the  country  at  large,  or  from  other  sections  of  the 
country,  we  have  a  dialect.  Dialect  characteristics 
may  affect  both  the  popular  and  the  cultivated  speech, 
altho  they  are  almost  always  much  more  strongly 
marked  in  the  speech  of  the  common  daily  intercourse 
of  the  people  than  they  are  in  the  speech  of  more 
careful  and  conscious  speakers.  Almost  every  com- 
munity has  its  local  popular  dialect,  as,  for  example, 
the  Hoosier  dialect  of  Indiana,  so  skillfully  used  by 
James  Whitcomb  Riley  in  his  poems ;  the  New  England 
dialect,  used  by  Lowell  in  the  Biglow  Papers ;  the 
Virginia  dialect,  made  familiar  to  all  of  recent  years 
through  many  a  story  of  Southern  life.  We  may  speak 
also  of  dialect  not  from  a  geographical  point  of  view, 
but  from  a  racial  and  linguistic  point  of  view.  When 
persons  whose  native  tongue  is  different  from  English 
settle  in  an  English  community,  they  are  likely  to  develop 
a  peculiar  kind  of  English,  which  consists  of  a  mixture 
of  their  own  native  tongue  with  English,  resulting  in 


140  MODERN  ENGLISH 

a  speech  which  is  neither  standard  English  nor  a  foreign 
language,  but  a  sort  of  mixed  popular  dialect  of  English. 
Thus  we  have  the  negro  dialect  in  this  country,  the 
Pennsylvania  German  dialect,  which,  however,  contains 
such  a  large  proportion  of  German  words  and  is  pro- 
nounced so  much  in  the  German  fashion  that  it  might 
better  be  called  a  dialect  of  German  than  of  English; 
in  certain  regions  which  have  been  largely  settled  by 
Scandinavians,  in  Minnesota,  Iowa,  and  other  places, 
there  has  also  grown  up  a  mixed  popular  Scandinavian 
and  English  dialect.  The  Irish  brogue,  or  dialect,  is 
familiar  to  all;  and  in  cities  in  which  there  is  a  large 
Hebrew  element,  a  Hebrew  dialect  with  marked  indi- 
vidual characteristics  has  grown  up.  None  of  these 
dialects,  however,  either  of  the  local  or  mixed  kind, 
tend  to  spread  beyond  their  own  respective  communities. 
When  they  are  used  in  literature,  it  is  for  the  purpose 
of  giving  local  color  to  a  situation,  or,  in  character 
studies,  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  speech  of  the 
character  harmonize  with  his  surroundings.  The  use  of 
dialect  for  local  color  is  found  as  far  back  as  Chaucer, 
and  is  of  course  very  common  in  later  fiction,  poetry, 
and  comedy.  The  value  of  comic  dialect  characters  on 
the  stage  has  long  been  known,  and  they  can  be  found 
as  far  back  as  Shakspere's  Welshman,  Scotchman,  and 
Irishman  in  Henry  V.  The  comic  effect  in  all  such  in- 
stances arises  from  the  violent  contrast  between  what 
is  regarded  as  the  standard  and  correct  speech  and  the 
speech  of  the  dialect  character,  Welshman,  Frenchman, 
village  philosopher,  or  whoever  it  may  be. 

The  line  marking  the  separation  of  the  popular  and 
local   dialect  from  the  standard  speech  of   cultivated 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  141 

persons  is  not,  however,  a  sharp  one.  The  ascent  from 
the  popular  to  the  standard  speech  is  gradual,  and  since 
every  speaker  is  necessarily  a  native  of  some  local  com- 
munity, his  speech,  especially  his  daily  colloquial  speech, 
is  almost  sure  to  bear  some  traces  of  its  local  origin. 
Just  to  what  extent  one  is  willing  to  allow  these  native 
and  local  characteristics  of  speech  to  remain  must  be 
left  to  individual  choice.  Perhaps  no  well-bred  speaker 
would  be  willing  to  have  his  speech  present  such  marked 
local  characteristics  that  it  immediately  determined  him 
as  belonging  to  some  special  class  or  community.  Such 
a  manner  of  speech  might  fairly  be  called  provincial. 
In  general,  the  more  formal  one's  speech  is,  the  less  it 
should  be  marked  by  localisms  or  provincialisms.  The 
reason  for  this  is  that  in  formal  discourse  one  usually 
is  addressing  a  larger  audience  and  one  made  up  of 
more  diverse  elements  than  is  the  case  in  ordinary  daily 
conversation,  and  consequently  economy  of  attention 
demands  that  we  should  avoid  such  peculiarities  of 
speech  as  might  offend  the  taste  of  any  one  present. 
Every  educated  person  owes  it  to  himself,  therefore, 
to  be  able  to  divest  his  speech  of  its  local  characteristics 
and  to  speak  a  language  which  is  approximately  stand- 
ard. What  one  shall  regard  as  approximately  standard 
must  again  depend,  in  the  end,  on  individual  observa- 
tion; but  on  this  question  we  shall  have  more  to  say 
later. 

13.  Organic  Sound  Changes.  In  the  preceding  para- 
graphs we  have  been  speaking  of  certain  changes  in  the 
pronunciation  of  English  sounds  which  become  general, 
or  tend  to  become  so,  through  the  process  of  imitation. 
Besides  these  changes  we  must  consider  a  second  group 


142  MODERN   ENGLISH 

in  which  the  changes  are  dependent  less  upon  the  law 
of  imitation  than  upon  purely  natural  and  physical 
causes.  These  we  may  group  under  the  general  head  of 
organic  changes.  The  underlying  explanation  of  all 
these  changes  of  this  second  kind  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  our  speech  rests  upon  varying  and  entirely  dif- 
ferent planes  of  utterance.  Sometimes  we  speak  very 
slowly  and  distinctly,  at  others  we  speak  rapidly  and 
with  less  attention  to  the  form  of  each  individual  word , 
certain  words  or  groups  of  words  we  stress,  while  others 
are  spoken  with  a  less  degree  of  energy.  In  general,  the 
principle  holds  that  the  amount  of  energy  we  put  forth 
in  the  operation  of  the  organs  of  speech  is  in  inverse  ratio 
to  the  obviousness  of  the  idea  to  be  expressed.  In 
speaking  a  conventional  formula,  as,  for  example,  the 
greeting  How  do  you  do  ?  we  enunciate  the  words  very 
indistinctly.  We  do  not  say  Hau  du  iu  du  ?  but  perhaps 
Hau  do  du?  or  Hau  du?  or  even,  the  dialect  writers  tell 
us,  Howdy  ?  It  is  not  only  in  the  speech  of  the  ignorant 
and  uneducated  that  such  relaxed  pronunciations  find  a 
place,  but  in  the  speech  of  everybody.  Some  little  prac- 
tice in  self-observation  is  often  required,  however,  before 
a  speaker  realizes  the  actual  phonetic  character  of  his  lan- 
guage. We  are  likely  to  have  some  theoretical  notion  of 
an  ideal  perfect  pronunciation,  —  the  conviction  perhaps 
that  we  speak  as  we  write,  —  so  firmly  fixed  in  our 
minds  that  we  think  we  say  what  we  think  we  ought  to 
say,  whereas  what  we  actually  say  is  something  quite 
different.  The  question  whether  or  not  it  is  right  to 
permit  ourselves  to  use  these  relaxed  pronunciations  we 
shall  consider  later.  In  the  meantime  we  should  observe 
that  the  principle  has  always  been  in  operation,  and 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  143 

that  it  has  deeply  affected  both  the  written  and  spoken 
form  of  our  language.  A  few  historical  illustrations 
will  make  this  point  clear. 

In  Milton's  Paradise  Lost,  in  a  passage  in  which  the 
poet  is  speaking  of  Dagon,  the  fish-god,  there  occurs  the 
curious-looking  word  grunsel : 

In  his  own  temple,  on  the  grunsel-edge, 
Where  he  fell  flat  and  shamed  his  worshipers.1 

The  meaning  of  this  word  would  be  hard  to  guess  from 
Milton's  form.  But  when  we  know  that  it  is  simply 
worn  down  from  a  compound  ground  +  sill,  the  analogy  of 
window-sill,  door-sill  gives  us  a  ready  clue  to  its  meaning, 
even  tho  a  compound  ground-sill  is  no  longer  in  cur- 
rent use.  Milton's  grunsel  is  only  one  of  many  words 
with  a  similar  history.  Our  formula  at  parting,  for  ex- 
ample, which  we  now  spell  Good-by  or  Good-bye,  and 
pronounce,  with  the  stress  on  the  second  syllable,  gad-baf, 
or  even  without  any  vowel  in  the  first  syllable,  g'd-bai, 
was  originally  the  whole  phrase  Q-od  be  with  you.  This, 
however,  was  entirely  too  long  for  a  conventional  for- 
mula, and,  its  literal  sense  being  lost,  it  gradually  came 
to  be  pronounced  in  an  obscured  and  indistinct  way. 
From  the  very  start  it  became  God  be  wi'  ye.  This 
further  contracted  into  God  bwye,  a  form  which  appears 
in  the  dialog  of  the  comedies  of  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury. Having  gone  so  far,  the  original  meaning  of  the 
phrase  became  altogether  lost;  the  first  syllable  was 
mistaken  for  our  word  good  and  the  second  for  our  word 
by,  and  we  reach  thus  our  modern  form  good-by.  Many 
words  of  the  language  have  become  obscured  in  fori» 

l  Bo<k  T,  11.  460-461. 


144  MODERN  ENGLISH 

in  the  same  way.  Our  Modern  English  word  lord  is  de- 
rived from  the  Old  English  compound  hlaf-weard,  the 
first  element  of  which  is  English  loaf  (of  bread),  the 
second  ward  (i.  e.,  guardian),  the  whole  word  meaning 
originally  the  guardian  of  the  loaf,  or  supplies  in  gen- 
eral. This  word  was,  of  course,  originally  a  descriptive 
epithet  for  protector  or  leader  of  the  people ;  in  time, 
however,  the  elements  of  the  word  ceased  to  be  appre- 
ciated separately,  and  since  the  word  stood  for  a  single 
idea,  which  was  not  analyzed  into  the  two  notions  of 
bread  and  guardian,  it  came  to  be  pronounced  as  a  sim- 
ple word.  From  hlaf-weard  it  became  hlaford,  then, 
with  the  loss  of  the  A,  which  was  general  in  all  words 
in  the  initial  position  followed  by  another  consonant, 
lauerd,  and,  finally,  lord.  By  a  similar  process,  Modern 
English  woman  has  been  derived  from  Old  English  wif- 
man,  the  second  element  being  the  generic  name  for 
human  beings,  and  the  first  element  wif-,  the  indication 
of  sex.  The  word  having  become  fixed  in  the  language 
consciousness  of  the  people  as  the  conventional  symbol 
for  the  idea  woman,  it  was  no  longer  felt  to  be  necessary 
to  analyze  it  into  its  descriptive  parts,  and  it  thus  con- 
tracted into  the  form  woman.  A  like  change  has  made 
Modern  English  stirrup  out  of  Old  English  stig-rdp, 
which  literally  meant  mounting-rope,  from  stig-,  mean- 
ing "  to  mount "  (cf.  German  steigen,  and  Modern  Eng- 
lish stile,  from  Old  English  stig-oT),  and  rap,  English 
rope.  Modern  English  nostril  is  derived  from  the  Old 
English  compound  nos-,  "  nose  "  +  ftyril,  "  hole,"  the  orig- 
inal compound  meaning  thus  "nose-hole."  The  word 
window  is  derived  from  the  two  elements  wind,  and  eage, 
44  eye,"  the  whole  meaning  "  wind-eye,"  "  the  eye  or  hole 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  145 

by  which  the  wind  enters  the  house."  The  word  punish 
appears  also  in  the  obscured  form  punch,  the  relation  in 
meaning  being  obvious. 

Many  further  illustrations  might  be  cited  of  what 
were  originally  careless,  or  better,  relaxed,  pronuncia- 
tions, making  their  way  into  the  written  as  well  as 
spoken  language.  For  the  present,  however,  it  will 
suffice  to  point  out  a  few  instances  in  which  these  re- 
laxed pronunciations  have  made  their  way  into  recog- 
nized use  in  the  spoken  language,  but  have  not  yet 
succeeded  in  changing  the  written  language  to  accord 
with  the  pronunciation.  Thus  we  write  the  compound 
of  sheep  +  herd,  shepherd,  but  we  pronounce  it  shepurd 
(Jepord).  The  nautical  terms  leeward  and  boatswain  are 
pronounced  luard  (luard)  and  bdsen  (b6san).  The  ad- 
verb and  preposition  compound  towards  is  pronounced 
tords  (terdz),  altho  other  compounds  with  -wards,  as, 
for  example,  forwards  and  backwards,  are  pronounced 
approximately  as  they  are  spelled,  except  in  the  popular 
speech,  where  they  also  have  become  obscured,  as  towards 
has  in  the  correct  or  standard  speech,  being  pronounced 
there  forards  and  backards  (ferordz,  bsekordz).  Other 
illustrations  from  correct  speech  are  wrist-band,  pro- 
nounced rizbond,  cupboard,  pronounced  kubard,  fore- 
head, pronounced  ferad.  A  similar  development  has 
taken  place  in  many  place  names  and  family  names. 
Thus  the  name  Salisbury  is  phonetically  Solsbery  (selz- 
beri) ;  the  name  of  one  of  the  colleges  of  the  University 
of  Oxford  is  Magdalen,  which  is  pronounced  Maudlin, 
and  which  is  etymologically  precisely  the  same  word  as 
the  English  adjective  maudlin.  The  name  Gloucester, 
priginally  from  Old  English  Gleawan-ceaster,  is  pho 

10 


146  MODERN   ENGLISH 

netically  Gloster ;  Leicester  is  pronounced  Lester ;  and 
Cirencester,  a  town  in  southern  England,  is  pronounced 
Sister.  The  discrepancy  between  the  spelling  and  the 
pronunciation  is  much  more  marked  in  place  names  in 
England  than  it  is  in  any  other  English-speaking  coun- 
try ;  it  is  so  great,  indeed,  that  it  offers  fair  justification 
for  the  old  story  of  the  traveler,  who  on  his  return  from 
a  visit  to  England  insisted  that  the  English  name 
Cholmondeley  (pronounced  Chumly)  was  spelled  Mar- 
joribanks  (pronounced  Marchbanks). 

In  all  obscured  words  of  the  kind  that  we  have  been 
discussing,  the  same  principle  is  involved.  The  words 
were  originally  spoken  distinctly  and  in  full.  As  time 
went  on,  however,  and  the  words  came  to  be  very  fa- 
miliar to  all  persons,  it  was  felt  to  be  unnecessary  to  give 
them  their  full  value.  They  were  intelligible  in  an  ab- 
breviated and  "  telescoped  "  form,  and  following  the  nat- 
ural law  of  economy,  they  came  to  be  used  only  in  this 
abbreviated  form.  If  we  turn  now  to  our  contemporary 
speech  we  shall  find  that  the  same  principle  holds  good. 
When  we  speak  rapidly  or  speak  even  in  an  ordinary  con- 
versational and  colloquial  tone,  we  have  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent kind  of  utterance  from  that  which  we  have  when 
we  speak  carefully  and  formally,  as  when  we  speak  to  a 
person  who  understands  English  imperfectly.  In  the 
latter  cases,  each  word  is  given  a  sharp  and  clear  enuncia- 
tion and  bears  a  separate  stress.  In  the  former  cases,  the 
words  are  run  together  more ;  only  one  or  two  important 
words  in  a  group  are  stressed,  the  rest  being  pronounced 
more  or  less  indistinctly  and  vaguely.  But  when  a  word 
which  in  other  instances  ordinarily  has  no  stress,  for  some 
reason,  usually  that  of  emphasis  or  antithesis,  is  given 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  147 

a  stress,  then  it  becomes  clear  and  distinct  and  usually 
has  a  different  phonetic  form  from  that  which  it  has  when 
in  unstressed  position.  Thus  the  sentence  /  saw  your 
sister  yesterday,  would  normally  be  pronounced  9  se 
yar  sister  yestarde  ;  but  the  sentence  I  did  nt  see  your 
sister  but  he  saw  mine,  in  which  we  have  two  pairs  of 
antithetic,  and  consequently  emphatic,  words,  /and  he\ 
and  your  and  mine,  would  be  pronounced  ai  didnt  sf  yur 
sister  but  hi  se  main.  This  difference  in  the  phonetic 
form  of  words  is  sometimes  recorded  in  the  spelling, 
the  preposition  of,  for  example,  usually  pronounced  uv, 
or  simple  a,  as  in  the  phrase  time  of  day,  taim  9  de*  (cf. 
four  o'clock,  from  four  of  clock),  being  the  unstressed 
form  of  which  the  adverb  off  is  the  stressed.  Likewise 
the  preposition  to,  pronounced  ta,  as  in  Pm  going  to  towny 
aim  gOirj  t9  taun,  is  the  unstressed  form  corresponding 
to  the  adverbial  stressed  form  too  (tu).  To  illustrate 
this  relaxed  or  natural  form  of  speech  a  few  connected 
sentences  may  be  quoted,  first  in  the  conventional  spell- 
ing, then  in  the  actual  phonetic  form  of  the  author's  col- 
loquial speech.  The  sentences  are  as  follows :  "  What 's 
the  French  for  <  I  don't  understand  '  ?  I  want  to  let  this 
Frenchman  know  I  can't  understand  what  he 's  saying. 
It's  rather  odd,  I  can  talk  French  myself,  but  I  can't 
understand  it  when  it 's  spoken.  You  should  tell  them 
not  to  speak  so  fast.  I  don't  believe  they  can  speak 
slow ;  they  are  too  excitable."  In  ordinary  conversa- 
tional tone,  the  phonetic  form  of  these  sentences  would 
be  as  follows :  hwats  89  frene  fgr  "  9  d6nt  undarstsend  "  ? 
9  want  9  let  Sis  frenem9n  no  9  ksent  undgrstaend  hwat  fz 
seirj.  its  raeS9r  ad,  9  kan  tek  frene  mgself,  but  9  kaent 
undarstsend  it  hwen  its  spokan.  ift  Jud  tel  $9m  nat  to 


148  MODERN  ENGLISH 

spik  so  fsest.     9  d6nt  biliv  Se  kaen  spfk  slo ;  Se  or  t& 
iksaitebal.1 

Perhaps  not  all  speakers  would  use  exactly  the  forms 
which  have  been  put  down  in  this  phonetic  transcription 
as  representing,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  use  of  the 
present  writer.  We  must  allow  for  variations  among 
individuals,  some  persons  not  only  following  different 
customs,  but  also  by  nature  speaking  more  slowly  and 
distinctly  than  others.  Thus  the  phrase,  I  can  talk 
French  myself  might,  in  the  pronunciation  of  some 
speakers,  take  a  fuller  form  of  the  pronouns  than  those 
given  above,  being  pronounced  ai  kan  tek  frene  maiself. 
But  the  more  obscure  forms  of  the  pronoun  will  cer- 
tainly be  heard  in  the  pronunciation  of  the  majority  of 
speakers.  Another  point  should  be  noticed  which  our 
phonetic  transcription  does  not  take  into  account,  and 
that  is  the  matter  of  binding,  or  liaison,  to  borrow  a 
term  from  French.  Our  custom  of  separating  the 
words  of  connected  discourse  by  spacing  is  purely  con- 
ventional. It  has  grown  up  largely  in  modern  times 
since  the  invention  of  printing.  The  manuscripts  of 
the  earlier  periods,  in  Old  English,  for  example,  do  not 
usually  separate  the  individual  words,  but  run  them 
together  in  a  straight  ahead,  running  or  cursive,  style 
of  writing.  This  method  of  writing,  tho  it  would  seem 
strange  and  inconvenient  to  us  now,  is  indeed  more  in 
accord  with  our  actual  manner  of  speaking  than  our 
present  printed  and  written  use.  For  in  speaking  we 
do  not  normally  pronounce  individual  words,  but  rather 
phrases  or  breath-groups,  the  pauses  coming  where  they 
are  demanded  by  the  logical  sense  and  not  before  and 

1  Adapted  from  Report  of  a  Joint  Committee,  etc.,  p.  42. 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  149 

after  each  word.  A  phonetic  transcription  of  the  first  two 
sentences  of  the  above  passage,  taking  account  of  this 
liaison,  or  binding  of  words  into  breath-groups,  would, 
therefore,  be  as  follows :  hwatsSafrene  faradSntundar- 
staend?  awantalet  SisfrenemannO  aksentundarstaend 
hwatizselrj. 

Perhaps  the  most  interesting  and  important  practical 
question  which  arises  from  the  observation  of  these  facts 
is,  What  shall  be  our  attitude  towards  these  colloquial 
or  relaxed  pronunciations  ?  Shall  we  try  to  get  rid  of 
them  as  careless,  lazy,  and  inelegant  ?  Is  there  an  ideal 
form  of  the  language  towards  which  we  should  strive 
and  in  which  such  pronunciations  shall  find  no  place  ? 
One  not  infrequently  meets  with  speakers  who  are  pos- 
sessed of  this  conviction.  Such  theorists  tell  us  that 
the  article  the  should  always  be  pronounced  Si;  the 
preposition  of  should  be  av  or  ev ;  the  verb  can  always 
keen,  never  kan,  and  so  with  all  other  words.  They 
tell  us  that  every  word  should  be  separated  sharply 
from  its  neighbors,  that  there  shall  be  no  liaison  of  word 
with  word.  They  would  have  us  pronounce  the  phrase 
a  good  deal  as  e  gud  dil,  instead  of  9  gudil;  at  all  as 
set  el,  instead  of  9tel.  If  the  word  suggest  has  two  g's 
in  the  spelling,  they  would  have  us  pronounce  two, 
sugjest,  instead  of  the  normal  and  natural  sajest ;  or  in 
such  words  as  nation  and  educate,  they  would  have  us 
pronounce  the  words  as  n£tyen  and  ediukSt,  instead  of 
n§fan  and  ejiukgt.  Needless  to  say,  this  "prunes  and 
prisms  "  sort  of  pronunciation  is  both  absurd  and  impos- 
sible. The  attempt  to  carry  it  out  would  result  in  what 
we  should  rightly  say  was  a  language  affected,  unnatu- 
ral, and  un-English.  The  fact  is  that  such  theorists 


150  MODERN  ENGLISH 

have  an  entirely  false  conception  of  the  nature  of  lan- 
guage, of  the  authority  of  the  printed  or  written  word, 
and  of  the  source  of  what  shall  be  regarded  as  standard 
and  correct.  They  forget  that  the  written  and  printed 
form  of  language  comes  after  the  spoken  form,  that  it  is 
merely  a  mechanical  invention  devised  to  recall  and 
suggest  the  real  and  living  language,  which  is  the 
spoken  language.  They  forget  also  that  the  mechanical 
device  of  printing  and  writing  can  only  imperfectly  and 
inadequately  represent  the  sounds  of  speech,  and  that 
speech,  to  use  the  figure  again  which  we  have  already 
used,  like  the  waves  of  the  ocean,  is  constantly  chang- 
ing and  assuming  a  multitude  of  new  forms,  whereas 
printing  and  writing  tend  to  become  more  and  more 
fixed,  conventional,  and  unchanging.  To  make  speech 
conform  to  the  printed  and  written  forms  of  language 
is  very  much  as  tho  one  should  try  to  make  the  trees 
of  a  forest  grow  in  conformity  to  an  artist's  picture  of 
them.  Both  speech  and  trees  have  a  life  of  their  own 
which  is  free  and  independent  of  man's  attempts  to 
reduce  them  to  a  descriptive  formula. 

The  standards  of  correct  speech  must  be  found,  there- 
fore, not  in  the  printed  or  written  form  of  language, 
but  in  the  normal,  natural  conversation  of  daily  life. 
It  might  seem  that,  having  elevated  the  natural  speech 
to  this  place  of  dignity,  we  have  justified  as  right 
and  correct  all  pronunciations  of  the  colloquial  and 
uncultivated  speech  whicli  have  followed  the  laws  of 
natural  development,  and  that  if  we  may  say  terdz 
for  towards,  we  may  just  as  correctly  say  ferardz  for 
forwards  and  bsekordz  for  backwards.  It  is  true  that 
the  vulgar  pronunciation  of  forwards  and  backwards, 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  151 

and  a  host  of  other  words,  has  followed  exactly  the 
same  principles  that  have  resulted  in  the  standard 
pronunciation  of  towards  and  words  of  like  kind ; 
but  it  is  not  true  that  we  are  at  equal  liberty  to 
choose  either  in  our  pronunciation.  For  the  law  of 
imitation  now  enters  to  determine  what  shall  be  chosen 
and  what  shall  be  discarded.  To  repeat  the  statement 
of  a  preceding  paragraph,  one  that  cannot  be  too  clearly 
held  in  mind,  phonetic  laws,  as  well  as  all  other  laws  of 
language,  become  laws  because  they  sum  up  or  general- 
ize the  custom  or  usage  with  respect  to  a  body  of  similar 
phenomena.  They  are  not  laws  because  they  express 
the  mandate  of  some  person  or  authority  empowered  to 
declare  what  shall  be  done,  but  they  are  laws  or  rules 
because  they  state  what  actually  is  done.  There  is  no 
individual  or  autocratic  power  in  language,  but  all  work 
together  voluntarily  in  groups.  The  popular  or  uncul- 
tivated speech  has  its  laws  or  rules  just  as  truly  as  has 
the  standard  or  correct  speech.  Consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously every  speaker  follows  the  customs  or  rules  of 
his  own  special  group  ;  for  him  these  are  the  laws  of  his 
language.  It  has  already  been  sufficiently  demonstrated 
that  these  laws  or  rules  are  not  fixed  once  and  for  all, 
but  are  constantly  adapting  themselves  to  each  other 
and  changing.  Now,  what  a  speaker  of  to-day  is  chiefly 
concerned  to  know  is  what  the  laws  or  rules  of  his  own 
present  day  speech,  of  his  own  group,  shall  be.  To 
determine  this  there  is  only  one  means,  and  that  is 
observation.  He  must  turn  and  examine  the  speech, 
the  living  speech,  of  those  persons  with  whom  he  is 
thrown  in  contact,  with  such  added  help  as  he  may  get 
from  books  and  dictionaries  in  extending  the  field  of  his 


152  MODERN  ENGLISH 

observation.  In  case  of  a  doubtful  pronunciation,  he 
must  determine  what  group  of  speakers  he  will  unite 
himself  with,  —  that  is,  the  customs  of  what  speakers  he 
will  imitate  or  follow.  He  will  observe  that  at  present 
the  law  of  the  popular  speech  is  to  pronounce  forwards 
as  ferardz,  and,  extending  his  observation,  he  will  per- 
ceive that  it  is  not  the  law  of  cultivated  speech  so  to 
pronounce  the  word.  The  choice  of  the  group  with 
which  he  will  unite  himself  then  lies  in  his  own  hands, 
and,  other  things  being  equal,  will  usually  be  in  favor 
of  the  cultivated  speech.  The  pronunciation  of  the 
cultivated  speech  is  for  him  the  correct  use  because  he 
chooses  it ;  it  is  the  law  of  his  language. 

It  is  obvious  from  what  has  been  said  that  no  pronun- 
ciation is  absolutely  and  inherently  right  and  another 
wrong.  Although  the  standard  towards  (terdz)  and  the 
popular  forwards  (ferardz)  follow  the  same  natural  law 
and  linguistically  are  on  the  same  level,  in  the  one  case 
the  result  has  been  accepted  by  the  group  of  speakers  to 
which  the  cultivated  and  educated  person  wishes  to  be- 
long, in  the  other  it  has  not.  In  so  far,  therefore,  the 
one  is  correct  and  the  other  is  incorrect ;  it  needs,  how- 
ever, only  the  acceptance  of  the  popular  form  into  gen- 
eral use  to  make  it  as  correct  as  the  other.  Historically 
it  has,  of  course,  often  happened  that  there  has  been  a 
shifting  back  and  forth  of  popular  and  standard  forms. 
Thus,  the  word  sound  appears  without  the  final  d  in 

Chaucer : 

Soun  is  noght  but  air  y-  broken.1 

This  is  the  correct  form,  historically,  since  the  word  is 
derived  from  Latin  sonum,  the  d  being  gratuitously 

1  House  of  Fame,  1.  765, 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  153 

added  in  later  times.  Thus,  the  Elizabethan  poet  and 
translator  Stany hurst,  commenting  on  the  length  of  cer- 
tain syllables  in  English  meter,  says :  "  Yeet  sowning 
in  English  must  bee  long,  and  much  more  yf  yt  were 
sounding,  as  thee  ignorant  generaly,  but  falslye  dooe 
wryte."  l  Yet  the  same  writer  drops  a  final  d  in  the 
word  rind  from  Old  English  rinde,  spelling  it  ryne : 
"  Not  onlye  by  gnibling  vpon  thee  outward  ryne  of  a 
supposed  historic."  2  As  it  happens  the  forms  of  these 
words  which  later  custom  has  settled  upon  are  sound 
and  rind,  but  they  might  just  as  well  have  been  soun 
and  rine.  In  further  illustration  of  the  shifting  of  the 
nd  sound,  the  word  lawn  may  be  cited.  In  Middle  Eng- 
lish, for  example  in  Chaucer,  this  word  is  always  launde, 
with  a  final  d.  Later  English  has  dropped  the  d,  as 
Stanyhurst  wanted  to  do  with  rind. 

It  is  obvious,  then,  that  the  burden  of  responsibility 
in  making  a  choice  between  two  divergent  pronuncia- 
tions rests  on  the  individual.  Every  person  has  not  only 
the  liberty  of  choice,  but  the  necessity  of  choice.  When 
a  question  of  pronunciation  comes  up,  each  must  decide 
for  himself  the  form  he  will  choose  to  use.  If  he  at- 
tempts to  put  off  the  responsibility  on  another,  say  on  a 
dictionary  or  the  opinion  of  some  one  whose  advice  is 
sought,  he  is  merely  removing  the  appearance  of  respon- 
sibility, for  in  these  instances  he  must  decide  for  himself 
the  value  of  the  sources  of  information  which  he  seeks 
and  which  he  is  willing  to  imitate  or  follow  blindly. 
Plainly,  also,  if  the  responsibility  rests  with  the  indi- 

1  In  Gregory  Smif  >,  Elizabethan  Critical  Essays,  I,  142. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  136.     B«  spelling  gnibling  he  apparently  derives  by  analogy 
to  gnaw. 


154  MODERN   ENGLISH 

vidual,  the  penalty  also  falls  upon  him.  If  the  illiterate 
person  pronounces  forwards  as  ferardz  and  knows  no 
better,  because  the  field  of  his  observation,  his  experi- 
ence, has  not  made  him  acquainted  with  a  different 
pronunciation,  he  must  nevertheless  bear  the  odium  of 
being  classed  with  the  uneducated  when  he  comes  into 
contact  with  the  educated.  He  pays  the  penalty  of  his 
ignorance,  and  so  does  every  one  else  who  uses  forms  of 
language  which  he  would  not  use  if  his  sensitiveness 
to,  and  observation  of,  language  had  been  keener  and 
broader.  Each  must  decide  for  himself  whom  or  what 
group  of  persons  he  will  regard  as  cultivated  and  edu- 
cated, —  that  is,  the  laws  and  customs  of  what  group  he 
wishes  to  follow.  Each  must  decide  for  himself,  also, 
what  innovations  he  can  risk.  If  he  choose  unwisely, 
if  he  follow  a  false  standard  of  refinement  and  cultiva- 
tion, he  must  bear  the  consequences  until  experience 
and  observation  shall  so  far  widen  his  horizon  as  to 
enable  him  to  follow  the  law  of  the  group  of  which  he 
really  wishes  to  consider  himself  a  part. 

14.  The  Standard  of  Pronunciation.  The  question 
of  a  standard  pronunciation  has  been  to  a  large  extent 
answered  in  the  discussion  of  the  preceding  paragraphs. 
By  the  term  standard  of  pronunciation,  one  usually 
means  a  fixed  norm,  an  established  and  accepted  form  of 
the  language,  which  shall  serve  as  the  model  upon  which 
all  speakers  shall  fashion  their  speech.  This  standard  is 
elevated  to'the  position  of  the  "  correct "  speech,  all  devi- 
ations from  it  being  regarded  as  incorrect.  A  grave 
difficulty,  however,  confronts  the  student,  and  this  is 
the  difficulty  of  determining  whether  there  actually  is  a 
standard  of  English  pronunciation  which  shall  serve  as 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  155 

the  pattern  and  model  for  all  English-speaking  people, 
and  if  so,  where  it  is  to  be  found.  In  the  first  place,  we 
may  safely  say  that  there  is  no  ideal  and  perfect  inher- 
ent form  of  the  language,  towards  which  all  speakers 
should  strive  as  towards  an  ultimate  goal.  There  is  no 
objective  system  of  language  outside  of  the  minds  and 
experiences  of  the  people  who  use  and  speak  the  lan- 
guage. In  seeking  for  a  standard  of  pronunciation,  con- 
sequently, men  must  look  to  themselves  and  their  own 
use,  not  to  some  extra-human  and  ideal  system  towards 
which  they  shall  dutifully  strive.  Any  standard  which 
is  chosen  must  be  made  up  from  the  laws  of  the  actual 
spoken  use  of  some  group  of  speakers,  because  it  is  only 
in  actual  spoken  use  that  language  really  exists. 

In  the  attempt  to  fix  upon  some  body  of  spoken  use 
as  the  standard  language,  the  question  may  be  ap- 
proached from  two  points  of  view,  first,  the  geographical, 
and,  second,  the  social  or  educational  point  of  view.  In 
attempting  to  establish  a  geographical  standard  of  spoken 
use,  choice  is  made  of  the  speech  of  some  one  region  or 
community,  which  is  to  be  regarded  then  as  the  model 
for  all  other  communities.  In  other  words,  one  dialect 
is  chosen  as  the  standard  to  which  all  other  dialects 
shall  conform.  In  some  countries  this  principle  is  rec- 
ognized in  actual  practice.  The  standard  French  dialect 
is  the  dialect  of  Paris,  the  standard  Italian  dialect  is 
the  dialect  of  Florence,  or  rather  of  Tuscany,  the  prov- 
ince in  which  Florence  is  situated;  a'nd  the  standard 
Spanish  dialect  is  the  Castilian,  the  dialect  of  Madrid. 
These  dialects  are  standard  for  their  respective  coun- 
tries, however,  because  the  people  of  these  various  coun- 
tries have  voluntarily  accepted  them  as  their  standard, 


156  MODERN   ENGLISH 

not  because  Parisian  French  or  Tuscan  Italian  or  Castil- 
ian  Spanish  have  any  inherent  right  to  the  exclusion  of 
other  dialects.  It  simply  so  happens  that  the  people  of 
these  various  countries,  in  the  development  of  their  civ- 
ilization, have  come  to  look  upon  certain  communities  as 
the  center  of  their  national  life  and  culture.  Turning 
to  the  English-speaking  countries,  however,  we  find  an 
entirely  different  state  of  affairs.  No  one  community  is 
now  accepted  as  affording  the  model  of  speech  to  which 
all  others  must  conform.  Theoretically  we  might  say 
that  London,  as  the  capital  of  the  native  home  of  the 
English  language,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  the  home  of 
the  standard  language.  As  an  actual  fact,  however,  the 
speech  of  London  is  not  so  regarded,  not  even  by  the  Brit- 
ish themselves.  The  English-speaking  people  through- 
out the  world  do  not  look  upon  London  as  affording 
the  ideal  speech  which  it  is  their  duty  to  imitate  and 
follow.  Indeed,  so  different  is  the  manner  of  speech 
of  Englishmen  from  that  of  Americans  that  the  former 
is  often  used  in  America  as  the  mark  of  a  comedy 
character  on  the  stage  — just  as  in  England  "  the  Ameri- 
can accent"  is  similarly  used  as  a  laughter-provoking 
device.  Of  course  the  stage  Englishman  and  American 
are  usually  exaggerations,  but  the  normal  speech  of  the 
two  countries  is  sufficiently  divergent  to  be  easily  per- 
ceived, and  too  divergent  to  allow  one  to  stand  as  a 
model  for  the  other.  "  No  American  speaker  or  writer 
ever  thinks  it  needful  to  adopt  the  British  form  of  his 
own  language,  any  more  than  a  British  speaker  or  writer 
thinks  it  needful  to  adopt  the  American  form."  l 

Practically  it  would  be  impossible  for  British  English 

1  Freeman,  Some  Impressions  of  the  United  States,  p.  56, 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  157 

to  serve  as  the  model  for  American  English,  or  Ameri- 
can English  for  British  English.  The  two  peoples,  de- 
spite their  many  similarities  and  relationships,  do  not 
come  into  sufficiently  intimate  and  frequent  personal 
contact  to  enable  them  to  know  directly  the  manner  of 
speech  of  each  other.  And  it  is  of  course  only  by  direct 
personal  contact  that  the  speech  of  one  community  can 
impose  itself  upon  that  of  another. 

Coming  nearer  home,  neither  do  we  find  in  our  own 
country  any  city,  Washington,  for  example,  or  any  re- 
gion, which  can  lay  claim  to  the  place  of  distinction 
which  the  French  accord  to  Paris  and  the  Italians  to 
Florence.  The  speech  of  Chicago  does  not  feel  itself 
under  any  compulsion  to  adapt  itself  to  that  of  Boston, 
or  that  of  Boston  to  that  of  Chicago.  The  speech  of 
New  York  cannot  impose  itself  upon  that  of  New  Or- 
leans, or  that  of  San  Francisco  upon  that  of  St.  Louis. 
In  short,  we  do  not  acknowledge  that  the  speech  of  any 
one  community  has  compelling  power  over  that  of  any 
other.  We  have  no  acknowledged  seat  or  center  of 
national  life  and  culture,  and  consequently  we  do  not 
elevate  to  the  position  of  a  standard  the  speech  of  any 
city  or  state. 

Failing  a  local  geographical  standard,  the  next  position 
would  be  that  the  standard  speech  is  not  the  speech  of 
any  one  community  but  the  speech  of  the  country  as  a 
whole.  In  answer  to  this  the  obvious  query  comes,  Is 
there  a  common  general  speech  of  the  country  as  a 
whole?  Does  the  average  Bostonian  speak  like  the 
average  Chicagoan  ?  Most  certainly  not.  He  does  not, 
not  only  because  he  does  not  want  to,  but  because  he 
could  not  if  he  would.  The  citizen  of  one  community 


158  MODERN   ENGLISH 

does  not  know  how  the  citizens  of  another  speak,  because 
it  is  only  by  a  long-continued  residence  in  a  strange 
community  that  a  visitor  can  acquire  a  wide  and  exact 
knowledge  of  its  manner  of  speech.  All  we  can  say  is 
that  some  comparatively  few  widely  traveled  and  cos- 
mopolitan speakers  have  acquired  a  manner  of  speech 
which  is  general  enough  not  to  betray  the  immediate 
locality  of  its  origin,  tho  it  must  always  have  character- 
istics individual  enough  to  class  it  broadly  as  Eastern 
or  Western  or  Southern.  With  the  vast  majority  of 
speakers  the  local  characteristics  are  even  more  marked. 
The  local  characteristics  of  one  community  may  extend 
over  a  wider  area  than  those  of  another,  the  dialect  char- 
acteristics of  Virginia,  for  example,  covering  a  less  extent 
of  territory  than  those  of  the  Middle  West ;  but  each, 
nevertheless,  has  its  local  metes  and  bounds,  and  for  its 
section  they  are  distinctive.  We  have  already  remarked 
that  the  speech  of  large  cities  especially  tends  to  become 
markedly  local  and  dialectal.  Thus  to  one  observant  of 
such  matters,  the  speech  of  Boston  or  Philadelphia  is 
soon  perceived  to  be  noticeably  different  from  that  of 
their  near  neighbor,  New  York.  Theoretically  one  might 
say  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  speakers  of  each  community 
to  strive  for  a  common  and  universal  speech  ;  that,  if 
the  Bostonian  will  not  speak  like  the  Chicagoan  or  the 
Chicagoan  like  the  Bostonian,  then  they  should  come 
together  on  some  middle  ground.  Each  region  thus 
yielding  some  of  its  individual  characteristics,  we  should 
arrive  at  a  compromise  among  the  various  local  speeches 
which  would  be  a  universal,  cosmopolitan  speech.  The 
obvious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  this  theory  is  that  the 
laws  of  language  are  not  based  on  theory,  but  arise  from 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  159 

actual  use.  When  the  Bostonian  and  Chicagoan  are 
thrown  so  intimately  together,  when  intercourse  between 
them  is  so  frequent  and  long-continued  that  they  become 
practically  one  in  their  habits  and  customs,  then,  and  not 
till  then,  will  they  speak  a  single  speech.  Then  they 
will  develop  a  new  dialect  comprehensive  enough  in  its 
limits  to  include  both  Chicago  and  Boston.  A  standard 
speech  cannot  be  imposed  dogmatically ;  it  cannot  even  be 
chosen  voluntarily.  It  must  grow,  as  all  other  customs 
grow  in  language,  gradually  and  naturally.  And  until 
some  such  change  takes  place  in  the  country  as  a  whole, 
until  from  a  group  of  more  or  less  clearly  denned  com- 
munities, it  becomes  one  great  homogeneous  community, 
so  long  we  shall  have  local  differences  of  speech  and 
so  long  will  the  theory  of  a  universal  standard  speech 
remain  a  vain  and  empty  dream. 

Besides  the  local  or  geographical  aspect  of  the  question, 
the  matter  of  the  standard  speech  may  be  approached 
from  a  second  point  of  view,  the  social  or  educa- 
tional. We  have  already  pointed  out  that  the  speech 
of  different  social  groups  or  classes  differs  widely.  The 
popular,  or  vulgar,  speech  is  different  from  that  of  the 
educated  person,  and  the  colloquial  and  every-day  speech 
of  the  latter  is  different  from  his  careful  and  formal 
speech.  The  question  of  choice  between  the  popular 
and  illiterate  speech  and  the  speech  of  educated  and 
cultivated  people  presents  little  difficulty.  Perhaps 
every  one  will  agree  without  question  that  the  speech 
of  the  uninformed  and  uninstructed  has  no  claim  to  be 
regarded  as  the  standard  or  correct  speech,  and  that,  on 
the  contrary,  the  speech  of  the  cultivated  portion  of 
society  has  every  claim  to  be  so  regarded.  The  diffi- 


160  MODERN   ENGLISH 

culty  comes  not  in  making  the  choice,  but  in  preparing 
the  way  for  the  choice,  in  determining  just  who  are  the 
cultivated  and  educated  and  refined  speakers  whom  we 
are  willing  to  regard  as  affording  the  models  or  laws  of 
the  correct  or  standard  speech.  The  difficulty  of  defin- 
ing education,  culture,  and  refinement  is  one  that  has 
often  been  felt.  They  are  qualities  that  may  be  readily 
perceived  when  they  are  exemplified  in  individuals,  but 
often  defy  description  and  analysis.  Perhaps  the  main 
source  of  the  difficulty  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  qualities 
mentioned  are  largely  matters  of  opinion,  that  no  per- 
son is  absolutely  educated  or  refined  or  cultured.  One 
whom  I  might  regard  as  an  educated  and  refined  person, 
another,  with  higher  or  at  least  different  standards,  might 
regard  as  uneducated,  as  crude  and  vulgar.  Everything 
depends  upon  the  point  of  view,  the  predilections,  the 
prejudices,  the  customary  habits  and  ways  of  thinking  of 
the  person  who  acts  as  judge  and  critic.  The  bearing  of 
this  upon  the  question  of  the  standard  of  correct  speech 
is  direct.  What  shall  I  regard  as  educated  and  refined  ? 
Where  shall  I  place  the  line  between  the  lower  and  the 
higher,  that  which  is  to  be  approved  and  imitated  and 
that  which  is  to  be  condemned  and  rejected  ?  To  these 
questions  there  is  no  general  answer.  Each  person  must 
put  the  questions  to  himself  and  must  answer  them 
for  himself.  He  must  judge  and  choose  according  to 
his  own  light  and  according  to  his  own  opportunities 
of  experience  and  observation.  It  is  the  end  of  edu- 
cation to  enable  one  to  make  right  decisions  in  such 
matters,  and  the  whole  process  of  education  cannot  be 
stated  in  a  word.  It  is  obviously  necessary  to  make 
these  decisions  not  only  with  respect  to  a  few  great 


J)K.  Came  you  from  Padua  from 2*&rt»t 

Ncr.  From  both. 
!  My  Lord  'Kcn&ia  greets  year  G race. 

2fo/I  WhydoiUhou  whet  thy  knife  fotameftly? 

ft*.  To  cue  the  forfeiture  from  hat  bankrout  there. 

CIA.  Not  on  thy  foalc :  bat  on  thy  foule  harfli  lew 
Thou  rr.ak'ft  thy  knife  keene  t  but  no  met  tall  can, 
No,  not  the  hangman*  Axe  bcarc  halfe  the  kcenncfle 
Ol  thy  fh  arpe  enuy.  Can  no  prayers  pierce  thcc> 

/**.  No,  none  that  thou  haft  wit  enough  co  make. 

</»-.f .  O  be  thou  damn'd,  incxccrablc  doggc, 
And  for  thy  life  let  iufhce  be  accui'd: 
Thou  almotlmak'ft  me  waiter  in  my  faith} 
To  hold  opinion  with  PithworMi 
That  foulcs  of  Animals  infufc  themfelties 
Into  the  trunkcs  of  men.  Thy  curtiihfpirie 
Goucrn'd  a  Wolfe,  who  hang'd  for  humane  (laughter^ 
Eueofroni  tli9  gailowes  did  h:s  fell  foule  fleet; 
Ami  whil'ft  thou  layed  in  thy  vnhallo  wed  dara, 
Infus'd  It  fclfc  in  thce :  For  thy  deiircs 
Are  Woliiifli,  bloody,  fteru'd,and  raucnou^ 

It*.  Till  thou  candrailethefealefrotDofTaiybond 
Thou  but  cffcnd  ft  thy  Longs  to  fpcake  fo  louj^:      * 
Repairs  thy  wi:  good' youth, 01  it  will  fail 
Toendleflc  ruine.  I  Hand  licerefor  I tw. 

JDv.  This  Letter  from  TZtiUri*  doth  commend 
A  yoog  and  Learned  Do^or  in  our  Cour c ; 
Whtretshe? 

Air.  Meattetidethheerehardhy 
To  know  your  «ifwer,whcthcr  y ou'l  admit  him. 

D**  With  all  my  heart.  Some  three  or  four  of  jfOV 
Go  giuchim  ctttteous  conduct  to  thts  place, 
Masuc  time  the  Court  (hall  hcm'Bcgariets  Lcttet'.i 

Oxr  Grtccfa&vndirfltHd,  t 

THE  FIRST  FOLIO  OF  SHAKSPKRE. 

Merchant  of  Venice,  Act  IV,  Sc.  i,  11.  119-152. 
(For  description,  see  Appendix.) 


162  MODERN   ENGLISH 

figures  or  authorities,  not  only  with  respect  to  public 
speakers,  for  example,  whom  one  hears  only  at  rare 
intervals,  but  also  with  respect  to  one's  daily  associ- 
ates and  the  hourly  customs  and  habits  of  familiar  life. 
The  decisions  of  the  latter  kind  are  naturally  the  more 
important  ones,  but  at  the  same  time  the  ones  concern- 
ing which  it  is  least  possible  to  give  a  general  guiding 
rule.  Here  again  individual  judgment  is  the  only  way 
we  have  of  deciding  who  the  good  speakers  are  among 
those  whom  we  meet.  We  are  naturally  inclined  to 
regard  our  own  judgment  in  such  matters  as  universal 
and  final,  but  this  is  an  assumption  that  is  likely  to 
be  questioned  as  soon  as  we  try  to  impose  our  stand- 
ards and  decisions  upon  others. 

The  authority  of  dictionaries  and  other  printed  works 
rests  upon  somewhat  the  same  basis  as  that  of  persons. 
Dictionaries  and  other  guide-books  are  the  work  of 
finite  human  beings,  and  tho,  in  general,  the  authors 
of  them  are  men  of  exceptional  weight  and  authority 
because  of  their  greater  information  and  extent  of 
observation,  they  are  nevertheless  fallible  and  limited 
in  their  experience.  Consequently,  when  the  statement 
of  a  dictionary  differs  from  one's  own  observation,  the 
sensible  thing  to  do,  after  one  has  made  sure  that  the  ob- 
servation is  true,  is  to  disregard  the  dictionary  altogether 
and  to  follow  the  example  of  actual  use.  Moreover, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  dictionaries  are  bound  to 
become  antiquated.  Before  one  gives  much  weight  to  the 
decision  of  a  dictionary,  one  should  make  sure  that  the 
dictionary  is  a  record  of  contemporary  use.  Early 
editions  of  Webster's  dictionary,1  for  example,  record  the 

1  The  later  editions  are  known  as  Webster's  International  Dictionary. 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  163 

pronunciation  dif  for  deaf,  as  well  as  many  other  uses 
that  are  no  longer  current  or  have  become  quite  dialectal. 
But  even  the  more  contemporary  dictionaries  are  not 
always  a  certain  guide.  In  the  great  proportion  of  in- 
stances they,  of  course,  are,  since  the  question  of  double 
use  arises  only  infrequently.  One  should  exercise  con- 
siderable caution,  therefore,  before  one  differs  from  the 
opinion  of  a  reputable  dictionary  like  the  New  English 
Dictionary,  the  Century,  or  the  Standard,  and  all  the 
more  caution  when  these  various  dictionaries  agree. 
Occasions  are  not  wanting,  however,  in  which  reputable 
use  is  at  variance  with  the  united  opinion  of  even  the 
best  dictionaries.  Thus  the  word  peremptory  is  stressed 
by  both  Standard  and  Century  dictionaries  only  on  the 
first  syllable,  whereas  the  pronunciation  peremptory  is 
certainly  the  more  usual  one,  even  among  careful  speak- 
ers. Both  dictionaries  stress  octopus  only  on  the  second 
syllable,  contrary  to  the  usual  custom  of  stressing  it  on 
the  first,  a  pronunciation  which  is  acknowledged  as  a 
secondary  one  by  the  New  English  Dictionary.  For 
culinary  the  dictionaries  record  only  the  pronunciation 
kiu'linseri,  altho  the  pronunciation  kulinaeri  is  perhaps 
as  frequently  heard.  The  word  vizor  is  recorded  as 
vi'zor  or  vi'zer,  although  one  hears  as  often,  perhaps 
more  often,  the  pronunciation  vai'zar,  or  vai'zer.  In 
some  instances  the  dictionaries  record  two  pronuncia- 
tions, leaving  to  the  choice  of  each  person  the  one  he 
prefers  to  use.  Thus,  we  have  the  forms  sedvertai'zmant 
and  sedver'tizmant ;  skwelor  and  skwelar;  ske'dsul, 
ske'diul,  and  in  England,  Je'diul.  Other  words  in  which 
the  dictionaries  as  well  as  usage  disagree  are  numerous. 
The  International  (Webster's)  Dictionary  records  only 


164  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  pronunciation  o'asis,  which  is  the  preferred  form  in 
the  Standard  Dictionary ;  but  the  Century  records  only 
oa'sis,  and  the  New  English  Dictionary  gives  both  oa'sis 
and  o'asis.  The  pronunciation  oa'sis  is  decidedly  the  more 
common  one  in  America ;  its  use  in  England  is  also  attes- 
ted by  the  scansion  of  the  following  line  from  Tennyson  i 

My  one  oasis  in  the  dust  and  drouth. 

A  similar  uncertainty  obtains  in  the  pronunciation  of 
legend,  which  is  sometimes  le'jond  and  sometimes  li'jond. 
One  hears  also  two  pronunciations  for  progress,  prSgres 
and  pre'gres  ;  and  for  drama,  dr^ma  and  dr§ma.  There 
is  also  a  divergence  of  use  in  certain  more  or  less  recent 
words,  as,  for  example,  vaudeville,  pronounced  vo'davil 
or  ve'davil;  automobile,  pronounced  etornO'bil  or  eto- 
mobil' ;  coupon,  pronounced  ku'pen  or  kid'pen. 

Webster's  International  and  the  New  English  Diction- 
ary record  only  the  pronunciations  petran  and  metran 
for  patron  and  matron.  The  Century  and  Standard  give 
a  second  pronunciation,  psetran  and  msetran.  On  the 
other  hand,  for  patronage  the  International  and  the  New 
English  Dictionary  give  only  the  form  psetrenej,  fol- 
lowed also  by  the  Standard ;  the  Century  gives  as  second 
pronunciation,  p§trenej.  For  matronal  the  International 
gives  first  msetrenal,  second  metrenal ;  the  New  English 
Dictionary  gives  only  the  second  pronunciation ;  and  the 
Century  and  Standard  give  the  second  as  a  preferred 
pronunciation,  and  the  International's  first  as  a  secondary 
pronunciation.  Can  anything  more  confusing  be  im- 
agined than  the  attempt  to  reason  out  a  principle  of 
choice  from  the  statements  of  the  dictionaries  with 
respect  to  these  four  words? 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  165 

A  pronunciation  of  the  word  hearth  as  hurp,  riming 
thus  with  earth,  birth,  etc.,  is  widely  current  in  the 
United  States,  both  in  popular  and  in  the  more  careful 
speech.  The  only  dictionary,  however,  which  recognizes 
this  pronunciation  is  the  Century,  which  gives  it  as  a 
second  pronunciation.  The  preferred  pronunciation  in 
the  Century,  and  the  only  one  recorded  by  the  Interna- 
tional, the  New  English,  and  the  Standard,  is  harp,  an 
assonance  to  heart,  part,  etc.  The  pronunciation  hurp  is 
not  only  a  legitimate  one  in  present  Americana  usage,  it 
is  also  supported  by  history.  It  is  indeed  a  survival 
from  a  pronunciation  which  was  once  general  and 
standard  in  English,  as  is  illustrated  by  the  rime  in  the 
following  lines  from  Milton's  II  Penseroso : 

Far  from  all  resort  of  mirth 
Save  the  cricket  on  the  hearth. 

This  pronunciation,  according  to  the  New  English  Dic- 
tionary, still  persists  in  Scottish  and  in  the  northern  dia- 
lects of  England.  And,  as  we  have  pointed  out,  it  also 
persists  in  good  use  in  American  speech,  which  in  many 
instances  has  been  strongly  conservative  of  earlier  usages. 
An  instructive  comparison  may  be  made  between  this 
pronunciation  of  hearth  as  hur]?,  and  the  pronunciation  of 
clerk.  This  latter  word  is  always  pronounced  klurk  in 
A.merican  speech,  with  the  same  quality  of  vowel  as  hurp. 
In  England,  however,  the  customary  pronunciation  is 
kl&rk  (with  the  r,  however,  slightly  pronounced  or  alto- 
gether omitted),  a  pronunciation  which  has  affected  the 
spelling  of  the  word  when  it  appears  as  the  proper  name 
Clark,  Clarke.  The  pronunciations  hurp,  klurk  are  the 
more  original  pronunciations,  of  which  the  forms  harp, 
klark  are  a  later  development.  This  later  form  is  illus- 


166  MODERN  ENGLISH 

trated  in  other  words  from  earlier  -er  in  which  the  spell- 
ing has  been  changed  to  accord  with  the  pronunciation, 
such  as  bark,  dark,  hark,  etc.  In  the  word  sergeant,  and 
in  the  words  hearth  and  clerk  as  pronounced  harp,  klark, 
the  earlier  spelling  has  remained  in  spite  of  the  change 
in  pronunciation.  The  word  person  has  assumed  two 
orthographic  forms,  the  one  cited  being  the  more  original 
form,  from  which  was  developed,  in  a  specialized  sense, 
the  word  parson.  What  has  happened,  consequently,  in 
American  .speech,  with  respect  to  the  words  clerk  and 
hearth,  is  that  in  clerk  the  earlier  form  has  persisted 
as  the  standard  use,  whereas  in  the  case  of  hearth, 
the  earlier  pronunciation  persists  pretty  generally  in 
the  popular  speech  and  to  some  extent  in  the  culti- 
vated speech,  altho  in  the  latter  place  it  tends  to  be 
crowded  out  by  the  later  pronunciation,  exemplified 
in  such  forms  as  heart,  dark,  hark,  etc.,  becoming  thus 
harp. 

One  or  two  further  miscellaneous  examples  of  uncer- 
tain use  may  be  given.  The  pronunciation  pa'resis  is 
the  only  one  recognized  by  the  International,  Century, 
Standard,  and  the  New  English  Dictionaries.  But  in 
actual  speech,  to  some  extent  in  the  medical  profession 
and  almost  always  outside  it,  the  pronunciation  heard  is 
pare* sis.  The  New  English  Dictionary  authorizes  only 
recondite ;  the  International  and  Standard  prefer  re- 
con'dite,  but  give  as  second  choice,  rec'ondite.  On  the 
other  hand  the  Century  gives  recon'dite  as  first  choice, 
and  re'condite  as  second.  All  the  dictionaries  record 
only  inqui'ry  (inkwai'ri),  disregarding  completely  the 
frequently  heard  pronunciation  with  stress  on  the  first 
syllable. 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  167 

15.  Spelling  Reform.  The  consideration  of  the  ques- 
tion of  spelling  reform  rightly  finds  a  place  in  a  discussion 
of  English  sounds,  for  the  reason  that  English  spelling 
is  merely  an  outward  and  visible  means  of  representing 
the  sounds  of  the  language.  The  language  itself  ex- 
isted in  all  its  essentials  long  before  it  was  reduced  to  a 
written  or  a  printed  form,  just  as  to-day  the  illiterate 
person  who  knows  nothing  about  reading  or  writing  is 
nevertheless  possessed  of  the  power  of  language.  Spell- 
ing or  writing  is,  therefore,  nothing  more  than  an  at>- 
tempt  to  reduce  to  a  fixed  and  permanent  formula  what 
was  already  pre-existent  in  the  impermanent  use  of 
spoken  speech.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that 
whatever  the  immediate  descriptive  or  pictorial  charac- 
ter of  written  language  may  have  been  in  its  origin,  it 
has  now  completely  lost  its  pictorial  value  and  is  merely 
a  set  of  conventional  and  arbitrary  signs,  the  signifi- 
cances of  which  have  to  be  learned  &nd-helcL  in  mind  .by 
a  pure  act  of  memory.  In  this  respect  written  language 
is  on  exactly  the  same  level  as  spoken  language.  In 
the  latter,  as  a  result  of  many  successive  ages  of  custom 
and  use,  we  have  settled  upon  certain  sounds  and  se- 
quences of  sounds  as  conveying  certain  ideas.  The 
value  and  meaning  of  these  sounds  and  groups  of 
sounds  have  to  be  learned  anew  by  every  individual 
who  acquires  command  of  the  language.  Parents,  by  a 
long  period  of  discipline  and  instruction,  teach  their 
children  how  to  make  the  sounds  and  what  ideas  the 
sounds  stand  for.  No  child  has  the  command  of  lan- 
guage inherently  and  by  nature,  but  only  as  he  learns  it 
by  .unitating  the  _s^eech_pf  _othfirs.  In  the  same  way, 
through  a  long  process  of  development,  we  have  come 


168  MODERN  ENGLISH 

to  settle  upon  certain  written  symbols  and  groups  of 
symbols  as  standing  for  certain  sounds  and  groups  of 
sounds.  Every  child  now  learns  to  make  this  arbitrary 
connection  between  the  symbol  and  the  sound,  just  as 
before  he  had  learned  to  make  a  connection  between  the 
various  sounds  and  the  respective  ideas  which  they  were 
used  to  designate.  Now,  having  settled  upon  a  conven- 
tional set  of  visible  written  symbols  to  stand  for  audible 
spoken  sounds,  the  question  of  reform  in  our  system  of 
visible  written  symbols  arises  when  an  endeavor  is  made 
to  make  more  perfect  or  consistent  our  system  of  sym- 
bols. Spelling  reform,  indeed,  is  only  a  name  for  this 
endeavor  when  it  becomes  conscious.  More  or  less  un- 
conscious spelling  reform  has  been  going  on  ever  since 
the  beginning  of  written  language,  because  from  the 
very  beginning  written  language  has  been  changing  in 
order  to  adapt  its  system  to  the  changes  in  the  spoken 
language.  When,  for  example,  in  the  Middle  English 
period,  the  initial  consonant  in  such  Old  English  words 
as  firing,  hleap-an,  and  hrof  ceased  to  be  pronounced, 
and  the  words  consequently  were  spelled  ring,  leap,  and 
roof,  that  was  as  much  a  spelling  reform  as  any  that  can 
be  advocated  nowadays.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  every 
change  in  spelling  that  has  taken  place  in  the  history  of 
the  language  has  taken  place  because  some  one  thought 
the  change  a  necessary  or  advisable  improvement  in  the 
system  of  spelling.  The  motive  underlying  the  change 
may  not  always  have  been  wise  or  well  considered,  but 
it  is  certain  that  changes  have  never  taken  place  in  a 
completely  haphazard  and  causeless  way. 

The  question  is  sometimes  asked,  Why  is  it  necessary 
for  us  to  think  about  the  matter  of  spelling  at  all? 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  169 

Since  our  system  of  spelling  is  an  arbitrary  and  conven- 
tional one,  does  it  matter  much  what  conventions  we 
use  ?  Why  should  we  set  to  work  consciously  to  alter 
or  improve  that  which,  when  all  is  said,  is  certainly 
capable  of  performing,  and  for  many  generations  has 
performed,  the  service  for  which  it  is  intended  ?  Or  it 
is  urged  that  if  any  changes  are  to  be  made,  we  should 
leave  them  to  the  next  generation  or  the  third  or  the 
fourth,  or  to  whatever  generation  feels  compelled  to 
make  them.  To  all  these  queries  and  objections  the 
answer  is,  that  we  are  under  no  necessity  of  considering 
the  question  of  spelling  reform.  No  matter  how  com- 
plicated or  inconsistent  or  imperfect  our  system  of 
written  speech  may  be,  if  we  wish  to  do  so,  we  can 
make  it  serve.  Englishmen  have  not  lived  and  spoken 
and  written  all  these  generations  without  evolving  a 
written  and  spoken  language  which  is  to  some,  or  rather 
to  a  high  degree,  adequate  to  the  purposes  for  which  it 
was  devised.  The  question,  therefore,  of  the  improve- 
ment of  English  spelling  is  not  one  of  necessity ;  it  is 
one  of  desire  and  inclination.  If  the  present  English 
spelling  affords  a  fairly  serviceable  medium  of  written 
expression,  it  does  so  because  it  has  been  an  object  of 
deepest  thought  and  consideration  to  many  generations 
of  English-speaking  peoples.  Spelling  is  a  human  insti- 
tution, and  like  all  human  institutions,  it  has  had  its 
crude  beginnings,  it  has  grown  as  a  result  of  the  effort 
of  individuals,  and  it  has  improved  by  rectifying  its 
errors  and  by  correcting  its  imperfections.  That  it  has 
now  reached  a  state  of  ultimate  perfection,  that  it  is  in- 
capable of  further  improvement,  the  history  of  other 
human  institutions  forbids  us  to  believe.  We  might  as 


170  MODERN   ENGLISH 

well  refuse  to  think  of  aerial  navigation,  because  we  are 
already  able  to  move  upon  the  earth  and  the  water  by 
electricity  and  steam,  as  refuse  to  look  to  the  future  of 
our  language  because  our  fathers  have  handed  down  to 
us  their  form  of  the  language.  The  endeavor  of  every 
one  truly  interested  in  the  welfare  of  his  speech  will  be 
to  make  that  speech  more  perfect  and  effective.  He 
will  not  rest  content  in  a  blind  conservatism,  but  will 
be  alert  and  quick  to  see  the  value  of  suggested  im- 
provement. The  matter  of  the  improvement  of  English 
spelling  is  specially  one  for  the  present  generation. 
Each  period  is  confronted  with  its  own  particular  prob- 
lems in  language,  and  it  is  on  the  way  in  which  each 
period  solves  its  problems  that  the  language  of  the 
future  depends.  For  our  period,  one  of  the  problems  is 
certainly  the  question  of  spelling  reform,  and  it  is  one 
deserving  of  careful  consideration  and  of  a  fair  and 
reasonable  answer.  Our  danger  of  error  is  no  greater, 
perhaps  is  less  great,  than  it  has  been  in  any  preceding 
period,  and  equable  judgment  and  sound  scholarship  are 
as  well  able  to  care  for  the  language  of  the  future  as 
they  ever  were  in  the  past. 

Just  in  what  respect  the  accepted  spelling  may  be  im- 
proved and  simplified  must  be  determined  by  a  separate 
discussion  of  individual  instances,  and  as  in  the  case  of 
the  changes  in  sounds  discussed  in  preceding  paragraphs, 
the  final  acceptance  of  these  changed  or  improved  or 
reformed  spellings  must  rest  upon  the  desire,  or,  to  use 
the  term  previously  employed,  the  imitation,  of  the  indi- 
viduals who  use  the  written  and  printed  form  of  the 
language.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the  chief  ob- 
stacle in  the  path  of  improved  spelling  is  a  result  of 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  171 

exactly  the  same  cause  which  has  made  change  and  im- 
provement desirable.  Spelling  was  at  first  free  to  adapt 
itself  to  the  spoken  forms  of  words.  The  simple  and 
natural  rule  of  spelling  was  to  write  as  you  speak. 
Consistency  in  the  spelling  of  an  individual  and  gen- 
eral uniformity  among  all  writers  were  not  regarded  as 
necessary,  or  even  as  virtues  towards  which  one  should 
strive.  In  Old  English,  for  example,  not  only  will  the 
same  word  be  spelled  differently  by  different  writers, 
but  even  the  same  writer  does  not  always  use  the  same 
spelling.  This  freedom  in  the  treatment  of  spelling 
persists  down  through  the  time  of  Chaucer,  even  down 
through  Shakspere  and  later.  One  need  only  turn  to 
an  early  quarto  or  folio  edition  of  one  of  Shakspere's 
plays,  an  edition  in  which  the  spelling  has  not  been  nor- 
malized and  modernized,  to  see  that  the  rules  of  Eliza- 
bethan spelling  were  much  less  uniform  and  consistent 
than  they  are  in  Modern  English.  To  find  in  our  time 
an  attitude  towards  spelling  parallel  to  that  of  Shak- 
spere's,  we  must  turn  to  the  use  of  those  whom  we  should 
now  call  the  imperfectly  educated,  those  who  spell  very 
much  as  they  feel  inclined.  The  reason  why  the  spell- 
ing of  Shakspere  and  of  the  contemporary  imperfectly 
educated  person  is  on  the  same  plane,  is  that  neither  of 
these  has  acknowledged,  or  in  fact  is  aware  of,  the  ideal >/• 
oLajperfejctly-sonsistent  and  uniform  system  of  spelling. 
This  is  an  invention  of  comparatively  modern  times,  and 
it  is  only  in  modern  times  that  it  has  been  made  a  re- 
quirement and  a  test  of  the  conventionally  educated 
person. 

The  causes  which  have  operated  to  bring  about  this 
change  of  attitude  towards  spelling  are  mainly  the  ex- 


172  MODERN  ENGLISH 

tension  of  the  reading  public  and  the  influence  of  the 
dictionaries  and  spelling-books.  The  influence  of  print- 
sing  and  of  the  rules  of  the  printing-houses  upon  English 
spelling  has  been  very  great.  In  the  first  place,  the 
printer  with  his  professional  sense  of  the  importance  of 
the  mechanical  side  of  his  art,  always  strives  for  com- 
plete consistency  and  regularity.  He  makes  his  margins 
always  the  same  width,  his  words  are  always  spaced 
exactly  so  far  apart,  he  uses  the  same  kind  of  type 
always  for  the  same  purpose,  and  in  countless  ways  he 

(^ndeav^rs_tp_make _M&_  w.ork- as mechanically  uniform 

and  regular  as  possible.  Obviously,  one  of  the  first 
things  to  which  he  would  direct  attention  would  be  the 
question  of  a  uniform  spelling;  and  so  we  find  with 
the  rise  of  the  great  printing-houses  in  England  in  the 
eighteenth  century  the  origins  of  a  rigidly  uniform 
system  of  spelling.  About  the  same  time  regularizing 
tendencies  began  to  show  themselves  also  in  the  mak- 
ing of  dictionaries  and  spelling-books,  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  choose  from  the  various  spellings  and  to 
record  what  was  regarded  as  the  one  standard  and  cor- 
rect spelling  of  words.  This  standard  of  correct  spelling 
was  usually  derived  from  contemporary  printed  books, 
and  consequently  the  dictionaries  gave  nothing  more  than 
the  statement  of  the  spelling  rules  of  the  printing  houses. 
Among  the  dictionaries,  the  most  influential  was  Dr. 
Johnson's,  the  first  edition  of  which  appeared  in  1755. 
This  book  purported  to  give  the  correct  spelling  of  all 
words,  and  it  and  other  later  dictionaries  after  its  model 
have  had  great  influence  in  spreading  the  belief  that 
words  have  only  one  permissible  and  correct  spelling, 
and  that  the  one  recorded  by  themselves, 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  173 

The  unconscious  influence  of  the  printed  word  has  also 
been  making  for  a  fixed  and  conventional  spelling.  Men 
read  so  much  nowadays,  newspapers,  books,  magazines, 
and  divers  forms  of  printed  literature,  that  the  printed 
word  has  come  to  seem  almost  more  real  than  the  spoken 
word.  The  former  certainly  is  more  obvious,  more  tan- 
gible, one  might  say,  and  more  permanent,  and  it  leaves 
a  more  definite  and  lasting  impression  on  the  memory 
than  the  spoken  word.  The  result  of  these  influences, 
of  that  of  the  printing-houses,  of  the  dictionaries  and 
rule  books  for  spelling,  and  of  printed  literature  in  gen- 
eral, has  been  to  raise  the  printed  word  to  a  position  of 
undeserved  importance.  It  tends  more  and  more  to 
detach  itself  from  the  spoken  word  and  to  become  an 
independent  and  conventional  symbol  for  the  former. 
Spelling  thus  becomes  a  thing  apart,  a  system  with  its 
own  rules  and  regulations  that  have  no  relation  to  any- 
thing else.  We  thus  have  spelling  for  spelling's  sake, 
instead  of  the  natural  state  of  affairs,  which  is  spelling 
for  speaking's  sake. 

Recognizing  the  danger  of  being  tyrannized  over  by 
an  unyielding  system  of  conventional  spelling,  we  have 
the  relief  in  our  own  hands.  We  should  remember  that 
whatever  authority  the  dictionary  maker  and  the  printer 
have,  they  have  it  because  the  voluntary  assent  of  the 
people  grants  it  to  them.  Neither  dictionary  maker  nor 
printer  is  a  lawgiver  who  has  power  to  legislate  finally 
as  to  what  spellings  shall  be  and  what  shall  not  be. 
They  are  individuals,  as  are  all  other  users  of  the  lan- 
guage, and  they  acquire  their  authority  just  as  other 
individuals  do,  that  is,  by  the  willingness  of  others  to 
follow  and  imitate  them.  Granting  this,  the  way  of 


174  MODERN   ENGLISH 

the  spelling  simplifier  or  improver  is  clear.  He  may 
choose  to  follow  the  spelling  of  the  dictionaries  and  the 
printers  when  he  sees  no  good  reason  for  deviating  from 
it;  but  when  he  chooses  to  deviate  from  it,  he  has  as 
great  right,  and  if  his  judgment  is  as  sound,  as  good 
authority  for  doing  so,  as  the  dictionary  has  for  pre- 
venting him. 

The  most  radical  scheme  of  spelling  reform  is  that 
which  is  proposed  by  the  advocates  of  a  phonetic  alpha- 
bet. They  point  out  to  us  that  spelling,  or  the  visible 
/form  of  language  in  general,  is  intended  merely  as  a 
representation  of  spoken  language,  and  that  as  such  it 
should  be  used  with  systematic  consistency  and  exact- 
ness. They  show  that,  on  the  contrary,  our  present 
spelling  in  some  instances  uses  letters  which  are  not 
pronounced  at  all,  as  the  final  e  in  late,  the  ue  of  tongue, 
the  I  of  walk;  in  others  uses  the  same  letter  with 
different  values,  as  the  c  in  cent  and  call;  the  a  in  hat, 
hate,  hall ;  and  in  still  others  uses  different  letters  with 
the  same  value,  as  s  and  c  in  sent,  scent,  and  cent ;  a  and 
-ey  in  hate  and  they ;  e  and  ee  in  he  and  see.  In  short, 
they  point  out  what  is  certainly  true,  that  our  present 
spelling,  for  one  reason  and  another,  has  become  a  very 
imperfect  and  inconsistent  means  of  representing  our 
present  sounds.  As  a  corrective  of  all  these  evils,  the 
phonetic  reformers  propose  that  an  entirely  new  alpha- 
bet be  invented,  one  in  which  each  sound  has  its  own 
symbol  and  in  which  no  symbol  has  more  than  one 
value,  that  this  new  alphabet  replace  the  old  traditional 
alphabet,  and  then  that  every  word  be  written  in  this 
new  set  of  symbols  as  it  is  pronounced.  The  advantage 
of  such  a  reform,  if  it  could  be  carried  through,  would 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  175 

be  undeniably  great.  Our  spelling  would  then  be  logi- 
cal and  systematic.  Foreigners  learning  English  would 
be  relieved  of  one  of  the  chief  difficulties  which  now 
lie  in  their  way.  Both  practically  and  theoretically 
such  a  system  of  phonetic  spelling  would  approach  the 
ideal  of  the  relation  which  should  exist  between  the 
spoken  and  the  written  word.  Unfortunately,  however, 
there  is  not  the  remotest  possible  chance  that  any  such 
radical  reform  could  ever  be  put  into  operation.  If  our 
language  were  in  the  hands  of  some  autocratic  power 
who  by  an  imperial  edict  was  able  to  declare  that  this 
or  that  shall  henceforth  be  the  law  of  the  language, 
there  might  be  some  hope  for  the  phonetic  reformer. 
But  the  English  language  is  not  in  the  hands  of  an 
individual,  or  even  in  the  hands  of  a  group  of  individ- 
uals. It  is  the  most  democratic  of  all  the  institutions 
of  a  democratic  people.  What  the  people  do  and  what 
the  people  will  is  the  law  of  the  language.  Now  ex- 
perience has  shown  that  the  will  of  the  people  is  in- 
alterably  opposed  to  any  such  wholesale  and  violent 
overturning  of  their  traditional  language  as  the  pho- 
netic reform  supposes.  Our  present  system  of  spelling 
has  come  to  be  as  it  is  slowly  and  gradually.  It  has 
its  roots  deeply  fixed  in  the  past.  It  is  the  form  in 
which  an  ancient  and  dignified  literature  is  recorded, 
and  on  all  sides  it  is  worthy  of  the  deep  respect  and 
veneration  which  we  rightly  pay  to  our  heritage  of 
national  and  social  tradition.  The  attempt,  therefore, 
to  replace  the  accepted  spelling  by  a  system  of  entirely 
new  manufacture  is  not  only  impossible,  but  it  does 
violence  to  a  sentiment  of  respect  and  a  feeling  for  the 
language  which  has  always  existed  and  which  should 


176  MODERN  ENGLISH 

always  be  cherished.  It  is  not  by  such  revolutionary 
methods  that  the  spelling  of  the  future  is  to  be  made 
better  than  the  spelling  of  to-day.  Now,  as  ever  in 
language,  changes  must  take  place  slowly  and  gradually. 
They  must  come  because  they  meet  with  the  approval  of 
.  the  general  body  of  the  users  of  the  language,  not  because 
they  seem  good  to  some  maker  of  systems  and  theories. 

A  compromise  phonetic  reform  is  that  which  would 
endeavor  to  get  along  with  our  present  alphabet,  but 
would  so  reconstruct  the  spelling  of  words  that  they 
would  be  spelled  systematically  in  the  phonetic  way 
as  far  as  is  possible  with  the  traditional  alphabet.  Thus 
the  words  doe  and  dough,  being  pronounced  alike  would 
be  spelled  alike,  both  perhaps  do,  by  analogy  to  so. 
The  same  spelling  could  not  of  course  answer  for  doe 
and  dough  and  also  for  the  verb  do  ,•  the  latter  would 
therefore  have  to  be  changed,  say  to  doo,  to  conform  to 
the  spelling  too,  school,  food,  etc.  If,  however,  oo  were 
settled  upon  as  having  the  value  of  the  vowel  in  do, 
then  the  word  rule  would  have  to  be  spelled  rool  (like 
spool),  through  would  be  spelled  throo,  who  would  be- 
come whoo,  fruit  would  become  froot  (like  root),  and  so 
on  through  a  countless  number  of  similar  changes.  Now 
again,  altho  many  of  these  changes  would  doubtless 
conduce  to  simplicity  and  regularity,  the  same  objection 
holds  against  carrying  out  a  systematic  and  compre- 
hensive scheme  of  spelling  reform  along  these  lines  as 
against  one  based  on  the  use  of  a  phonetic  alphabet,  and 
that  is,  that  the  changes  necessitated  are  too  numerous, 
and  the  violence  done  to  the  natural  conservative  feel- 
ing for  the  language  is  too  great.  The  work  of  reform 
must  proceed  more  slowly. 


ENGLISH  SOUNDS  177 

A  third  comprehensive  and  systematic  scheme  of 
spelling  reform,  which  is  the  exact  opposite  of  that  pro- 
posed by  the  phonetic  reformers,  is  the  one  which,  recog- 
nizing the  difficulty  of  making  English  spelling  conform 
to  English  pronunciation,  seizes  the  other  horn  of  the 
dilemma,  and  proposes  that  English  pronunciation  be 
made  to  conform  to  English  spelling.  The  advocates  of 
this  theory,  if  there  are  any  serious  enough  in  its  de- 
fense to  be  called  its  advocates,  point  out  that  we  now 
have  an  approximately  fixed  and  rigid  system  of  spell- 
ing, and  that  it  seems  to  be  easier  for  us  to  make  our 
spelling  fixed  and  permanent  and  standard  than  our 
pronunciation.  Why  not,  therefore,  make  spelling  the 
standard  of  pronunciation,  and  instead  of  trying  to 
wjite  as  we  speak,  speak  as  we  write  ?  This  ingenious 
proposal  has  one  main  obstacle  in  its  way,  an  obstacle 
which,  as  we  have  had  occasion  to  remark,  lies  in  the 
way  of  many  another  proposal  for  the  reform  of  lan- 
guage, and  that  is  that  the  English  language  does  not 
grow  and  adapt  itself  to  the  far-reaching  plans  of  theo- 
rists, but  as  it  lives  and  is  utilized  in  the  every-day  in- 
tercourse of  life.  The  history  of  English  pronunciation 
has  shown  that  in  a  comparatively  very  small  number 
of  words,  the  written  form  has  reacted  upon  the  spoken 
form  and  altered  its  pronunciation  to  conform  to  the 
spelling ;  thus,  our  word  perfect  (purfekt)  is  originallyy 
a  learned  spelling,  based  on  the  Latin  perfectum,  for  the 
word  which  was  spelled  parfit  in  Chaucer  and  which 
was  pronounced  as  it  was  written.  The  learned  spell- 
ing, however,  not  only  crowded  out  the  spelling  parfit, 
but  even,  in  time,  made  the  pronunciation  parfit  conform 
to  the  spelling  perfect.  On  the  other  hand,  the  word 

12 


178  MODERN  ENGLISH 

debt,  which  Chaucer  spelled  and  pronounced  det,  be- 
cause it  is  ultimately  derived  from  Latin  debeo,  debitum, 
was  given  a  b  by  the  Renascence  spelling  reformers ; 
this  £>,  tho  we  have  retained  it  in  our  spelling,  debt, 
has  never  succeeded  in  making  its  way  into  the  pro- 
nunciation as  has  the  c  in  perfect.  Other  examples 
might  be  cited,  but  the  instances  in  which  pronunci- 
ation has  adapted  itself  to  the  spelling  of  words  are 
so  few  that  they  show  the  futility  of  the  endeavor,  to 
make  the  principle  of  speaking  as  you  write  one  of 
general  application. 

But  if  the  theories  for  the  reconstruction  of  English 
spelling  which  have  just  been  discussed  must  be  pro- 
nounced as  impossible  and  visionary,  it  does  not  follow 
that  nothing  can  be  done  for  the  English  spelling  of  the 
present  and  of  the  future.  We  may  refuse  our  support 
to  radical  and  revolutionary  movements  without  pass- 
ing to  the  other  extreme  of  ultra-conservatism.  There 
//is  a  middle  ground  between  the  complete  reform  of 
\y) English  spelling  and  unquestioning  acquiescence  in  and 
acceptance  of  that  which  we  have;  and  instead  of  at- 
tempting the  thoro  reconstruction  of  our  spelling,  we 
may  more  safely  and  with  greater  hope  of  success 
strive  for  the  improvement  and  simplification  of  our 
present  system.  Any  changes  which  are  made  must 
be  duly  considered;  they  must  be  tested  by  the  prin- 
ciples which  have  governed  the  growth  of  the  language 
in  the  past,  because  it  is  only  by  the  study  of  these 
historical  principles  that  we  acquire  a  knowledge  of 
language  and  acquire  safe  rules  of  guidance.  Each 
change  or  each  group  of  changes,  therefore,  offers  a 
special  problem  which  demands  special  consideration. 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  179 

Only  a  few  of  the  more  important  can  be  discussed 
here. 

A  large  number,  perhaps  the  majority  of  instances, 
in  which  the  question  of  spelling  arises,  come  under  the 
general  head  of  choice  between  two  spellings,  both  of 
which  already  are  in-^mrrent  use.  The  determination 
of  the  choice  rests  of  course  upon  the  circumstances  of 
each  case,  but  a  good  rule  of  general  application  is,  of 
two  spellings  choQSjL_tii£  simpler.  Other  things  being 
equal,  that  is  always  the  simpler  and  the  preferable  of 
two  spellings  which  is  the_shorter,  or  which  is  in  con- 
formity  with  the  more  general  phonetic  practice  of  the 
language.  When  one  has  the  choice  between  a  familiar 
English  spelling  and  a  strange  or  unusual  spelling,  the 
preference  should  be  for  the  former. .  Thus  there  is  little 
justification  for  the  spelling  gaol  when  we  have  the 
form  jail,  or  for  the  spelling  troupe  when  we  have 
troop.1 

In  making  simplifications  in  spelling,  however,  it 
should  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  necessary^  or  Jndeed 
possible,  to  be  thoroly  consistent.  We  may  decide  to 
omit  certain  silent  letters,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  we 
should  omit  all  silent  letters.  We  may  omit  the  u  in 
honour  without  omitting  it  in  course,  thus  spelling  that 
word  like  the  noun  corse.  The  only  safe  guiding  rule  is 
to  simplify  spelling  when  there  are  advantages  to  bev 
gained  and  no  counterbalancing  losses.  Complete  lists 

1  "  Early  in  the  first  scene  of  his  Critic,  Sheridan  used  the  word 
'  troop '  in  the  sense  of  a  theatrical  company  of  actors ;  also  Malone,  in 
his  edition  of  Shakespeare  published  in  1821  (Vol.  iii,  p.  175),  uses  the 
word  'troop'  in  the  same  sense.  I  must  quote  them  as  my  authority. 
Perhaps  I  may  be  wrong,  hut  I  prefer  'troop '  to  '  troupe.'  "  H.  M. 
Trollope,  Life  ofMoliere,  p.  viii. 


180  MODERN   ENGLISH 

of  these  possible  simple  spellings  cannot  be  given  here, 
but  a  few  of  the  classes  of  words  affected  may  be  indi- 
cated.1 

In  general  they  will  be  found  to  fall  under  three  main 
heads,  as  follows : 

(I)  Of  two  possible  spellings,  choose  the  one  which  follows 
the  usual  spelling  of  the  language. 

(a)  Write  center,  meter,  miter,  theater,  etc.,  like  father, 
winter,  manner,  etc. 

(6)  Write  criticize,  penalize,  legalize,  and  so  in  all  words 
with  the  -ize  suffix,  avoiding  thus  the  two  forms  -ise  and  -ize. 
Also  in  the  roots  of  words  with  the  two  spellings  s  and  z, 
choose  z  as  being  the  usual  representation  for  the  sound; 
examples  are  raze,  teazel,  vizor,  devize,  comprize,  surprize, 
and  so  forth. 

(c)  Write  e  (instead  of  se,  oe)  in  word  likes  esthetic,  ency- 
clopedia, medieval,  archeology,  dieresis,  etc. 

(d)  Write  -ow  instead  of  -ough  in  plow. 

(e)  Write  -i  for  -y  in  gipsy. 

(II)  Omit  silent  letters  wherever  usage  permits  it. 

(a)  Write  abridgment,  judgment,  acknowledgment,   etc., 
instead  of  abridgement,  etc.     Write  the  plurals  of  all  nouns 
ending  in  o  in  -os,  that  is,  potatos,  tomatos,  negros,  pianos, 
cargos,  folios,  etc. 

(b)  Write  ax,  adz,  develop,  domicil,  envelop,  glycerin,  wo, 
etc. ,  instead  of  axe,  adze,  develope,  etc. 

1  For  further  discussion,  students  are  referred  to  the  lists  of  double  spell 
'ngs  given  in  Webster,  Worcester,  and  the  Standard  Dictionaries ;  also  to 
circulars  of  the  Simplified  Spelling  Board,  where  lists  are  printed  of  words 
in  common  use  which  are  spelled  in  two  or  more  ways.  Attention  may 
be  called  also  to  the  long  lists  of  Amended  Spellings  at  the  end  of  the 
Century  Dictionary,  together  with  the  introductory  remarks  preceding 
these  lists.  All  interested  in  the  question  of  English  spelling  should  com- 
municate with  the  Simplified  Spelling  Board,  1  Madison  Avenue,  New 
York  City,  whose  interesting  publications  will  be  sent  free  on  application 


ENGLISH   SOUNDS  181 

(c)  Write  bun,  distil,  fulfil,  fulness,  etc.,  instead  of  bunn, 
distill,  etc. 

(d)  Write  wagon,  fagot,  woolen,  etc. ,  instead  of  waggon, 
faggot,  woollen,  etc. 

(e)  Omit  the  final  -me  of  words  like  programme,  etc., 
writing  program,  gram,  diagram,  etc. ;  the  final  -te  of  words 
like   epaulette,    writing   epaulet,   omelet,   coquet,   etc. ;   the 
final  -ue  of  words  like  prologue,  writing  prolog,  dialog,  cata- 
log, decalog,  etc. 

(f)  Instead  of  honour,  etc.,  write  honor,  ardor,  fervor, 
savior,  color,  etc. 

(Ill)  Use  phonetic  spelling  whenever  it  seems  advisable 
to  do  so,  that  is,  whenever  usage  has  so  far  accustomed  the 
reader  to  the  phonetic  spelling  that  his  attention  will  not  be 
distracted  too  much  to  the  new  form  of  the  word.  Some 
phonetic  spellings  are  of  course  now  conventional  and  regu- 
lar, as,  for  example,  fancy,  fantasy,  with  initial  /  instead  of 
ph.  So  also  with  fantom  instead  of  phantom,  and  sulfur 
instead  of  sulphur.  By  the  same  analogy  we  should  also 
write  fonetic,  fonograf,  fosfate,  fotograf,  etc.,  spellings 
which  are  at  present  questioned,  but  which  are  bound  to  be 
the  spellings  of  the  future.  The  past  tenses  of  verbs  like 
cross,  crush,  clip,  mix,  that  is,  verbs  in  which  the  stem  ends 
in  a  voiceless  continuant  or  stop  consonant,  may  be  formed 
merely  by  the  addition  of  t,  giving  instead  of  crossed,  crushed, 
etc.,  the  forms  crost,  crusht,  dipt,  etc.  These  phonetic  spell- 
ings are  to  be  found  frequently  in  the  poets,  whose  writings, 
making  as  they  do  a  special  appeal  to  the  ear,  are  likely  to 
be  more  phonetic  than  those  of  prose  authors ;  but  numeroui 
instances  of  their  use  may  also  be  found  in  works  written  in 
prose.  Likewise  the  spelling  altho  and  tho  are  of  not  un- 
common occurrence  in  literature,  either  with  the  apostrophe 
added  to  indicate  the  loss  of  ugh  (altho',  tho'),  or  without  the 
ipostrophe.  The  omission  of  the  ugh  is  a  natural  and  easy 
simplification,  and  the  spelling  tho,  altho,  and  thoroly  should 


182  MODERN  ENGLISH 

be  generally  accepted.  With  many  persons,  some  hesita- 
tion is  felt  with  respect  to  the  form  thru  for  through,  re- 
commended by  the  American  Educational  Association,  the 
Simplified  Spelling  Board,  and  various  other  bodies.  The 
spelling  thru,  however,  is  logical  (u  after  r  has  the  value  u, 
as  in  rule,  rude,  rune,  ruminate,  etc.),  and  a  good  deal  of  the 
disfavor  with  which  it  is  regarded  is  due  to  the  novelty  of  the 
form.  But  the  use  of  any  spelling  cannot  be  made  compul- 
sory, and  any  one  who  disapproves  of  the  form  thru  has  per- 
fect right  to  refuse  to  use  it,  altho  the  same  liberty  of 
choice  which  one  claims  for  oneself  one  should  allow  to  others. 
In  spelling  reform,  as  in  all  other  developments  in  language, 
we  must  trust  to  a  frank  interchange  of  opinion  and  a  ready 
acceptance  of  the  best  for  the  accomplishment  of  changes 
that  shall  be  of  permanent  and  general  value. 


VI 

ENGLISH  WORDS 

1.  The  Study  of  Words.  The  study  of  words  is  in 
many  respects  the  most  approachable  side  of  the  study 
of  language.  This  is  true  partly  because  the  word  is, 
in  a  way,  an  independent  fact  of  language,  and  is 
thus  much  more  readily  appreciated  than  are  sounds 
or  inflections.  Besides,  the  word  has  very  immediate 
connections  with  thought.  A  history  of  the  words  of  a 
language  is  almost  a  complete  history  of  the  thought 
and  the  civilization  of  the  people  which  speaks  that 
language.  The  study  of  words  is  also  of  very  great 
importance  in  the  practical  affairs  of  every-day  life.  One 
of  the  most  valuable  accomplishments  a  person  can  have 
is  the  ability  to  express  himself  clearly  and  forcibly  in 
language,  and  to  do  this  he  must  know  how  to  use  words, 
must  know  their  significances,  their  connotations,  and 
their  possibilities.  Of  course  no  one  supposes  that  mere 
information  about  words,  however  wide  that  information 
may  be,  will  make  a  good  writer  or  speaker ;  it  is  the 
just  combination  of  thought  with  its  appropriate  words 
that  is  the  result  to  be  attained,  and  it  is  the  proper 
purpose  of  the  study  of  words  to  provide  the  unclothed 
thought  with  its  fitting  garb  of  expression. 

All  words  have  established  themselves  in  the  language 
in  one  of  two  ways,  first,  either  by  original  creation,  that 
is,  the  actual  formation  of  new  words  or  the  new  adapta- 


184  MODERN  ENGLISH 

tion  of  old  ones,  this  latter  process  being  as  much  creation 
as  the  formation  of  new  words  outright ;  or  second,  by 
borrowing  from  other  languages.  These  two  methods  of 
building  up  the  vocabulary  of  the  English  language  will 
now  be  considered  in  detail. 

2.  Word  Creation.  The  question  which  probably 
rises  first  in  the  mind  of  the  student  of  vocabulary  is, 
What  is  the  ultimate  origin  of  the  native  words  of  the 
language  with  which  we  are  so  familiar?  Did  some 
primitive  language  creator  fashion  all  words  at  one  fixed 
time,  and  have  we  continued  to  use  this  original  stock 
since  then  without  adding  our  creations  to  it  ?  Or  does 
the  creation  of  words  still  continue  as  an  active  process? 
To  these  questions  the  first  answer  is  that  by  far  the 
greater  number  of  words  are  inherited  from  countless  gen- 
erations of  speakers  of  the  language  who  have  preceded 
us.  Our  native  words  are  therefore  mainly  a  tradi- 
tional inheritance  just  as  our  other  common  social  posses- 
sions, as,  for  example,  the  organization  of  the  family  or 
the  state,  are  traditional  inheritances.  They  go  back  so 
far  that  their  first  origin  is  prehistoric  and  can  be  con- 
sidered and  explained  only  with  the  aid  of  theory. 

The  earliest  and  most  primitive  theoretical  stage  of 
language  about  which  it  is  fruitful  to  reflect  is  the  period 
of  root-creation.  To  understand  this  stage  of  language 
we  may  examine  the  parallel  to  it  in  the  language  of 
children  when  they  are  first  learning  to  speak.  To 
a  child  such  a  word  as  "  ball "  may  mean  anything  which 
has  one  of  the  characteristics  of  a  ball,  for  example,  that 
of  roundness.  Thus  he  may  call  an  apple  "ball,"  or  a 
round  stone,  or  the  moon,  or  anything  round.  To  him  the 
word  "ball"  expresses  the  root-idea  of  anything  with 


ENGLISH  WORDS  185 

the  quality  of  roundness.  So  to  a  child  the  word  "  choo- 
choo,"  to  use  a  childish  word,  may  mean  a  train  of  cars, 
or  a  steam  engine,  or  even  things  which  to  an  older  and 
more  observant  person  are  not  at  all  like  these,  for 
example,  a  tea-kettle  with  the  steam  coming  from  it.  In 
very  primitive  stages  of  human  development  we  may 
suppose  a  state  of  affairs  similar  to  that  in  the  language 
of  the  child.  Language  consisted  of  a  more  or  less 
limited  number  of  generalized  word-forms,  or  root- words, 
of  wide  application,  but  of  corresponding  indefiniteness 
of  meaning. 

The  first  thing  which  primitive  speakers  would  natu- 
rally strive  to  do,  would  be  to  make  these  root-words 
more  specific  in  their  values  so  that  language  could  \|e 
more  exact.  There  would  thus  begin  a  development  and 
specialization  in  the  use  of  words  which  has  continued 
to  the  present  day,  and  which  will  continue  so  long  as 
the  language  is  a  living,  spoken,  and  written  medium 
of  expression. 

These  later  developments  in  specialization  did  not  often 
take  the  direction  of  the  creation  of  new  roots.  This  is 
a  power  which  probably  became  restricted  in  very  early 
periods  of  the  development  of  language,  and  which 
is  now  almost  completely  lost  in  English,  being  exem- 
plified only  in  the  invention  of  words  the  mere  sound  of 
which  is  descriptive  of  the  objects  they  name.  Examples 
of  such  "echoic  words,"  as  they  have  been  called,  are 
boom,  fizz,  simmer,  sizzle,  pop,  snicker,  whir,  whiz,  etc.  More 
usually,  however,  specialization  in  vocabulary  has  come 
about  in  historic  times  not  through  the  creation  of  new 
roots,  but  by  means  of  the  adaptation  and  development  of 
old  material.  Such  adaptations  are  still  to  be  regarded  as 


186  MODERN  ENGLISH 

creations  in  language,  since  it  is  by  an  internal  develop- 
ment of  its  own  resources  that  the  language  increases 
its  power  and  variety.  This  remains  to-day  a  frequent 
method  of  growth  in  language,  and  some  of  the  more 
important  of  these  changes,  which  may  be  grouped  under 
the  general  head  of  differentiation  in  vocabulary,  will 
now  be  considered. 

3.  Differentiation  by  Gradation.  As  a  means  of 
differentiating  the  meaning  of  words,  gradation  is  no 
longer  an  active  principle  in  English,  altho  the  work- 
ings of  it  in  earlier  periods  are  still  to  be  observed  in 
many  Modern  English  words.  The  way  in  which  words 
are  differentiated  in  meaning  by  gradation  may  be  best 
described  by  means  of  an  illustration.  We  have,  for 
example,  the  verb  "  drive,"  with  its  principal  parts 
u  drive,"  "  drove,"  "  driven."  The  form  "  drive"  may  also 
be  a  noun,  as  in  the  phrase  "  a  long  drive  " ;  so  also 
"  drove  "  appears  as  a  noun  in  "  a  drove  of  cattle  "  ;  and 
the  first  three  letters  of  "  driven  "  in  "  a  drift  of  snow." 
We  have,  therefore,  in  these  words  a  sort  of  root-form 
of  word  for  the  general  idea  of  driving,  which  might  be 
expressed  by  merely  the  consonant  framework  of  it  as 
drv  or  drf.  To  differentiate  this  'generalized  root- 
meaning,  the  language  places  different  vowels  in  this 
consonant  frame,  in  this  instance  the  vowels  ai,  6,  and  i. 
Gradation  is  most  readily  observed  in  Modern  English 
in  the  tense  formation  of  the  irregular  or  strong  verbs, 
as  "  sing,"  "  sang,"  "  sung,"  to  which  add  also  the  noun 
"song";  "ride,"  "rode,"  "ridden,"  to  which  add  the 
nouns  "raid"  and  "road";  "rise,"  "rose,"  "risen"; 
"  bear,"  "  bore,"  "  borne,"  to  which  add  the  noun  "  bier," 
that  upon  which  a  body  is  borne,  and  "  bairn,"  one  who 


ENGLISH   WORDS  187 

is  born  in  the  natural  sense,  and  the  nouns  "  birth  "  and 
"  burden."  Many  of  the  words  of  the  language  are  thus 
held  together  in  such  gradation  groups,  all  of  the  words 
of  the  respective  groups  having  the  same  general  meaning 
but  each  being  a  specific  application  of  that  meaning. 
Not  all  words,  however,  are  members  of  gradation  groups, 
some  of  the  oldest  and  most  familiar  words  in  the  lan- 
guage, such  as  u  house,"  "  stone,"  "  water,"  etc.,  appar- 
ently standing  quite  separate  and  independent.  Words 
of  this  sort  are,  therefore,  the  only  recognizable  surviv- 
ing representatives  of  the  original  root-words. 

4.  Differentiation  by  Composition.  The  method 
of  word  formation  or  differentiation  by  composition  is 
one  that  has  existed  from  very  early  times  and  is  still 
actively  employed  in  the  English  language.  It  consists 
not  in  changing  the  root-form  of  the  word,  but  in  add- 
ing something  to  it,  in  placing  side  by  side  two  previ- 
ously independent  elements,  which  then  fuse  into  a  single 
meaning,  different  from  the  meaning  of  either  element 
taken  singly.  The  most  obvious  kind  of  composition  is 
that  in  which  we  have  the  juxtaposition  of  two  words 
each  of  which,  taken  separately,  has  a  definite  and  clear 
meaning.  We  may  call  this  the  composition  of  full- 
words,  the  various  kinds  of  full-words  still  compounded 
in  English  being  as  follows  : 

(a)  Noun  +  noun  compounds,  as  in  typewriter,  door-sill, 
saw-horse,  window-frame,  pleasure-trip,  pleasureground, 
Mayfair,  shot-gun,  silvertip  (the  grizzly  bear),  etc.  In  all 
these  instances  we  have  two  ideas  loosely  approximated,  to 
form  a  new  idea,  the  specific  value  of  the  new  idea  being 
intrusted  to  the  inference  of  the  speaker  or  hearer.  This 
method  of  composition  approaches  the  use  of  the  adjective 


188  MODERN  ENGLISH 

before  the  noun,  but  differs  from  it,  as  can  be  seen  by  com- 
paring " a  gold  ring"  and  "a  goldmine";  or  the  sentences 
"  This  cane  has  a  silver  tip"  and  "  This  bear  is  a  silvertip." 
(6)  Adjective  +  noun  compounds,  as  in  blackbird,  black- 
berry, Broadtvay,  highway,  whitewash,  hotbed,  busybody, 
shortcut,  quickstep,  sweetbread,  etc. 

(c)  Noun  +  adjective  compounds,  as  in  penny -wise,  pound- 
foolish,   water-tight,  grass-green,  man-shaped,  purse-proud, 
stone-cold  ;  cf.  EUng  Richard  III,  Act  I,  Sc.  2,  1.  5 :  "  Poor 
key -cold  figure  of  a  holy  king." 

(d)  Adverb  +  verb   compounds,   forming  nouns,   as  in 
downfall,  downpour,  output,  upstart,  upshot,  offshoot,  undertow, 
etc. 

(e)  Verb  +  adverb  compounds,  forming  nouns,  in  words 
usually  of  only  very  colloquial  character,  as  in  *  the  go-by" 
"  a  come-down,"  "a  break-up,"  "  a  cut-off,"  u  a  walk-over," 
"  a  dug-out,"  etc. 

(/)  Adjective  or  adverb  -f-  adjective  or  adverb,  as  in  blue- 
green,  unheard-of,  ever-young,  evergreen,  long-winded,  worldly- 
wise,  outright. 

(g)  Adverb  +  verb  compounds,  forming  verbs,  as  in  undo, 
overdo,  underrate,  gainsay,  withstand,  etc. 

(h)  Preposition  compounds,  as  in  into,  because,  beside, 
alongside,  unto,  until,  etc. 

(i)  Particle  compounds,  as  in  nevertheless,  altho(ugh), 
altogether,  notwithstanding,  always,  etc. 

(f)  Verb  stem  (originally  imperative)  +  noun,  expressing 
the  object  of  the  action  of  the  verb  idea,  as  in  breakwater, 
breakfast,  driveway,  standpoint,  scapegrace,  scarecrow,  turn- 
key, carryall,  etc.1 

(k)  Phrase  compounds,  groups  of  words  which  through 
long  custom  have  come  to  be  written  together,  as  in  father- 

1  See  Bradley,  Making  of  English,  p.  114.  To  this  group  belongs 
view-point,  a  compound  so  recent  that  it  is  regarded  as  objectionable  by 
many. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  189 

in-laio,  man-of-war,  tradesman  (originally  trade's  man,  a 
man  of  trade),  goodnight  (from  /  wish  you  a  good  night)) 
hand-to-mouth,  etc. 

It  is  often  very  difficult  to  tell  whether  a  compound 
should  be  written  with  a  hyphen  or  hyphens  or  without 
them.  The  usage  of  good  writers,  of  dictionaries,  and 
of  the  printing  houses  differs  widely  in  this  respect.  In 
general  we  may  say  that  the  closer  the  compound  the 
less  need  there  is  of  the  hyphen.  It  is  a  safe  rule,  there- 
fore, to  use  the  hyphen  only  where  it  seems  necessary, 
and  this  will  have  to  be  determined  largely  by  one's  own 
judgment  and  observation.  It  should  be  noted  also  that 
there  is  often  no  essential  difference  between  words  which 
are  written  as  compounds  and  other  words  which  are 
never  so  written,  as,  for  example,  "out  of"  and  "into" 
in  the  sentence,  "  He  fell  out  of  the  frying-pan  into  the 
fire."  So  words  like  "notwithstanding,"  "neverthe- 
less," etc.,  are  written  together,  whereas  the  approxi- 
mately equivalent  words,  "on  the  contrary,"  "in  spite 
of,"  etc.,  are  never  so  written.  The  question  is  one 
which  often  has  to  be  left  to  the  arbitrary  decision  of 
usage. 

5.  Obscure  Compounds.  Attention  has  already 
been  called  to  the  fact  (pp.  142  ff.)  that  one  element  of  a 
compound  word  tends  to  become  obscured  in  pronuncia- 
tion, and  thus  to  lose  its  significance.  As  result  of  this 
tendency  we  now  have  a  great  many  words  in  English 
which  were  formerly  compounds  of  full-words,  and 
which  were  felt  as  such,  but  which  now  no  longer  show 
the  elements  of  which  they  are  composed.  Examples  are 
window,  from  Old  English  wind  +  edge,  "  wind-eye " ; 


190  MODERN   ENGLISH 

nostril,  from  Old  English  nos  +  ]>yrel,  "  nose-hole  " ; 
starboard,  from  Old  English  steor  +  bord,  "  steer-board," 
the  board  (cf.  sea-board),  or  side  of  a  boat,  from  which 
the  steering  is  done ;  hussy,  from  Old  English  hus  -f  wif, 
"  house-wife  " ;  woman,  from  Old  English  wif  +  man ; 
gossip,  from  Old  English  god  +  sib,  literally  "  god-friend," 
used  first  of  the  sponsors  at  baptism,  then  of  any  famil- 
iar friend  of  the  family,  then  by  natural  transition  to  its 
present  meaning  of  gossip;  stirrup,  from  Old  English 
stiff  -h  Tap,  "  mounting-rope " ;  dipsey  (as  in  dipsey 
chantey),  from  deep  -f  sea;  brimstone,  from  brin  (by 
metathesis  from  "  burn,"  cf.  Germ,  brennen)  +  stone, 
"  burn-stone  " ;  barn,  from  Old  English  ber  +  cern,  ber  = 
"  barley,"  cern,  "  building,"  the  whole  word  meaning, 
therefore,  "  building  in  which  barley  was  kept " ;  or- 
chard, from  Old  English  ort  +  geard,  literally  "  garden 
yard,"  the  first  element  being  probably  the  same  as 
Latin  hortus.  In  a  word  like  cupboard  the  compound  has 
become  obscured  in  pronunciation,  altho  the  spelling 
still  keeps  clear  the  elements  of  which  it  is  composed. 
In  many  instances  popular  etymology  has  endeavored  to 
make  full  compounds  out  of  words  which  were  of  quite 
different  etymological  origin.  Thus  the  word  hiccough, 
pronounced  hickup,  seems  really  to  be  derived  from  a 
form  hicket,  the  first  syllable  hick-  being  allied  to  the 
form  hack-,  as  in  "a  hacking  cough,"  and  the  syllable 
-et  being  merely  a  diminutive  suffix.  The  spelling  hic- 
cough arose  apparently  because  the  word  was  thought 
to  have  something  to  do  with  the  word  cough.  Other 
familiar  instances  of  similar  popular  etymologies  are 
sparrow-grass  from  asparagus ;  ash-falt  from  asphalt ; 
causeway  from  the  French  word  chaussee,  meaning  a 


ENGLISH  WORDS  191 

high-road;  crayfish,  or  popularly  crawfish,  from  Old 
French  crevice,  Modern  French  Icrevisse.  The  word 
hackneyed,  as  in  "  a  hackneyed  phrase"  meaning  some- 
thing worn  down  from  constant  usage,  derived  from  the 
Old  French  haquenSe,  "  an  ambling  horse  or  mare,"  then 
by  extension,  any  horse  put  out  to  public  hire,  and  by 
still  further  extension,  anything  overworked,  is  some- 
times etymologized  into  hack-kneed.  In  all  these  in- 
stances more  or  less  unfamiliar  words  are  explained  in 
terms  of  other  words,  the  forms  of  which  at  least  are 
more  familiar,  altho  their  connection  in  meaning  with 
the  original  word  is  often  quite  remote. 

6.  Compositional  Elements.  Besides  the  compo- 
sition of  full- words,  English  makes  frequent  use  of  cer- 
tain word-forms  which,  taken  separately,  do  not  have 
any  clear  and  full  meaning,  but  which  are  used  only  as 
prefixes  and  suffixes  to  make  more  specific  the  meaning 
of  other  words.  These  compositional  elements,  as  they 
may  be  called,  may  possibly  all  have  been  full- words  at 
some  remote  period,  but  if  so  this  full  meaning  of  most 
of  them  has  been  lost  more  completely  than  it  has  in  the 
case  of  the  obscure  compounds  mentioned  in  the  pre- 
ceding section.  The  method  by  which  compositional 
elements  are  used  to  differentiate  the  meaning  of  words 
is  too  familiar  to  need  extended  illustration.  The  ele- 
ment -dom,  for  example,  forms  compounds  like  kingdom, 
wisdom,  freedom,  etc.  ;  -hood  forms  the  compounds 
knighthood,  childhood,  manhood,  priesthood,  etc. ;  -ship 
appears  in  friendship,  kinship,  worship,  fellowship,  etc. ; 
-er  is  very  common  as  a  suffix  in  nouns  of  agency,  as 
in  baker,  writer,  singer,  driver,  teetotaler,  abstainer,  etc. 
Examples  of  prefixes  are  a-  in  arise,  alight ;  be-  in  bedeck, 


192  MODERN  ENGLISH 

berate,  bespeak,  etc.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  free  use 
of  compositional  elements  to  form  new  words  has  been 
very  much  restricted  by  traditional  usage.  With  the 
suffix  -th  we  can  form  the  noun  youth  from  young,  truth 
from  true,  mirth  from  mer(ry),  wealth  from  weal,  health 
from  heal,  etc. ;  but  we  cannot  form  gloomth  from  gloom, 
or  wrongth  from  wrong,  or  illih  from  ill,  etc.  Moreover, 
certain  compositional  elements  tend  to  take  on  a  very 
specific  value,  not  of  course  to  the  extent  of  becoming 
full-words,  altho  they  acquire  the  power  of  changing 
the  root  word  in  a  very  definite  way.  Thus  the  prefix 
be-  has  acquired  to  a  considerable  extent  the  power  of 
giving  a  derogatory  or  slightly  contemptuous  sense  to 
the  word  with  which  it  is  compounded,  as  in  bepraise, 
befog,  bedeck,  bedizen,  bedevil,  belabor,  bedaub,  besmear, 
bemire,  befuddle,  becalm,  bedraggle,  bemuse.  This  value 
of  be-  is  illustrated  in  the  following  stanza  of  Kipling's 
Cruisers  : 

As  our  mother,  the  Frigate,  bepainted  and  fine, 
Made  play  for  her  bully,  the  Ship  of  the  Line ; 
So  we,  her  bold  daughters  by  iron  and  fire, 
Accost  and  destroy  to  our  master's  desire. 

So  also  the  suffix  -ard,  when  it  is  limited  to  persons,  is 
used  only  in  a  derogatory  sense,  as  in  coward,  sluggard, 
niggard,  wizard,  dullard,  dastard,  bastard,  dotard,  drunk- 
ard, beside  which  we  have  only  a  few  nouns,  such  as 
blizzard,  gizzard,  custard,  mustard,  etc.,  of  various  etymo- 
logical origins.  The  suffix  -ish  also  has  an  interesting 
history.  In  the  earlier  periods  of  the  language  it  was 
used  to  form  adjectives  of  quality  without  particular 
connotation,  as  in  Englisc,  "  English,"  folcisc,  "  folkish  " 
(i.  e.,  to  use  the  modern  Latin  equivalent  word,  "  pop- 


ENGLISH  WORDS  193 

ular  ") ;  and  Chaucer  (Troilus  and  Criseyde,  V,  1. 1813) 
even  speaks  of  "hevenish  inelodye."  Later  the  suffix 
came  to  be  applied  to  adjectives  in  order  to  indicate  a 
slight  degree  of  the  quality  named  by  the  adjective,  as 
bluish,  brackish,  sweetish,  etc.,  and  then,  perhaps  through 
such  words  as  boyish,  girlish,  to  give  a  somewhat  con- 
temptuous or  scornful  turn  to  the  word,  as  in  womanish, 
mannish,  childish,  as  compared  with  womanly,  manly, 
childlike,  and  in  other  adjectives  like  bookish,  heathenish, 
etc.1  In  Chaucer,  however,  the  suffixes  -ly  and  -ish  had 
not  yet  been  differentiated.  This  is  shown  by  his  phrase, 
"heavenish  melody,"  with  which  compare  his  use  of 
fiendly  where  we  should  now  have  to  say  fiendish : 

That  man  hath  a  feendly  herte. 

Book  of  the  Duchess,  593. 

Inflectional  elements  are  often  closely  related  to  com- 
positional elements,  and,  as  has  already  been  pointed  out,2 
many  of  them  were  probably  independent  full-words 
which  have  become  very  much  obscured  in  the  course  of 
time. 

7.  Differentiation  by  Metaphor.  This  method  of 
differentiating  the  meanings  of  words  consists  in  chang- 
ing a  word  from  one  order  of  thought  to  another  without 
changing  its  form.  This  may  be  done  in  various  ways, 
as  follows  : 

(1)  A  concrete  term  may  be  changed  from  one  concrete 
sense  to  another,  as,  for  example,  the  word  crane,  originally 

1  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  a  parallel  development  has  taken  place 
in  the  case  of  the  same  ending,  -isch,  in  German,  as  in  words  like  diebisch, 
narrisch,  etc.     See  Brugmann,  The  Nature  and  Origin  of  the  Noun  Genders, 
pp.  28-30. 

2  See  above,  pp.  56-58. 

13 


194  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  name  of  the  bird,  becomes  also  the  name  for  the  hoisting 
machine,  the  most  notable  thing  about  both  cranes  being  their 
long  legs.  The  word  horse,  first  the  name  of  the  animal, 
may  mean  also  a  piece  of  gymnasium  apparatus,  or  a  rack 
for  hanging  objects  on,  as  a  clothes-horse.  The  noun 
key  from  its  first  literal  sense  passes  to  numerous  meta- 
phorical senses,  as,  for  example,  its  use  to  designate  a  book 
which  gives  answers  to  problems  contained  in  another  book ; 
or  we  may  speak  of  an  important  fact  as  u  the  key  to  the 
mystery."  Primarily  the  word  chest  meant  only  a  box,  usu- 
ally a  box  in  which  valuables  were  kept;  but  about  the 
sixteenth  century  it  came  to  be  used  also  of  the  framework 
of  the  breast  which  encloses  the  heart,  a  figurative  use  which 
is  exemplified  in  various  conscious  metaphors  before  it 
settles  down  into  the  literal  meaning.  Thus  we  have  the 
following  couplet  in  Shakspere's  Richard  II,  Act  I,  Sc.  1, 11. 
180-181 : 

"  A  jewel  in  a  ten-times  barr'd-up  chest, 
Is  a  bold  spirit  in  a  loyal  breast." 

Shakspere's  contemporary,  Sir  John  Davies,  elaborates  the 
same  figure  in  the  following  stanza  of  his  Nosce  Te  Jpsum 
wi$h  a  fullness  of  detail  which  to  a  modern  writer  would  be 
quite  impossible  now  that  the  word  chest  has  acquired  literal 
and  commonplace  meanings : 

"  O  ignorant  poor  man !  what  dost  thou  beare 
Lockt  up  within  the  casket  of  thy  brest? 
What  iewels,  and  what  riches  hast  thou  there  ! 
What  heavenly  treasure  in  so  weake  a  chest! 5>1 

This  feeling  for  the  figurative  use  of  chest  may  be  further 
illustrated  by  the  use  of  box  in  a  similar  way  in  the  following 
passage  from  a  seventeenth  century  writer :  "I  had  yours 
lately  by  a  safe  hand,  wherein  I  find  you  open  to  me  all  the 
Boxes  of  your  Breast."  2 

1  Davies,  Nosce  Te  Ipsum,  ed.  Grosart,  I,  114. 

2  Howell,  Familiar  Letter^  ed.  Jacobs,  U,  378. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  195 

The  parts  of  the  human  body  are  used  very  frequently  with 
this  transferred  metaphorical  value.  Thus  head  may  be  used 
of  the  head  of  a  nail,  screw,  or  pin ;  of  a  head  of  lettuce  ;  the 
front  of  an  engine,  as  illustrated  by  "  head- light ";  and  of 
many  other  similar  objects ;  we  also  speak  of  the  leg  of  a 
table  or  chair ;  the  foot  of  a  mountain  ;  the  hand  of  a  watch 
or  dial ;  the  eye  of  a  needle ;  the  nose  of  a  boat  or  ship ;  the 
ear,  meaning  handle,  of  a  bottle,  as  in  Cowper's  John 
Gilpin'sRide,  "  Each  bottle  had  a  curling  ear  "  j1  the  mouth  of 
a  vessel  or  a  river  ;  the  beard  of  a  head  of  wheat  or  barley  j 
the  teeth  of  a  saw ;  the  tongue  of  a  wagon ;  the  cheek  of 
a  peach ;  the  arm  of  a  lever ;  the  bosom  of  the  earth ;  and 
there  are  many  other  instances,  literally  too  numerous  to 
mention. 

(2)  A  concrete  word  may  be  changed  from  a  physical  sense 
to  an  intellectual  or  spiritual  sense,  as  the  adjective  burn- 
ing in  "a  burning  desire,"  or  cold  in  "a  cold  disposition," 
or  heavy  in  "  a  heavy  heart."  The  word  sad  had  originally  a 
physical  meaning  which  persists,  however,  only  in  a  few  uses, 
like  sad-iron,  or  as  descriptive  of  heavy,  soggy  cake  or  bread. 
The  adjective  sullen  has  a  somewhat  similar  history.  It  is 
derived  ultimately  from  a  Late  Latin  solanus,  through  the 
French,  meaning  "  single,  solitary."  Thus  Chaucer  in  his 
Parlement  of  Foules  (1.  607)  has  the  cuckoo  say  that  if  he 
can  have  his  mate,  the  other  birds  may  be  sullen,  or  in 
Chaucer's  spelling,  soleyn,  all  their  lives.  This  meaning 
persists  fairly  late,  as  may  be  seen  from  its  use  by  Defoe 
(Essay  on  Projects,  London,  1697,  p.  244):  "  But  there  is  a 
direct  Signification  of  Words,  or  a  Cadence  in  Expression, 
which  we  call  speaking  Sense  ;  this,  like  Truth,  is  sullen  and 
the  same,  ever  was  and  will  be  so,  in  what  manner  and  in 
what  Language  soever  7t  is  express'd."  From  single  or  soli- 

1  The  word  ear,  in  "  ear  of  corn,"  is  etymologically  a  different  word, 
though  now  it  is  usually  thought  of  as  being  a  metaphorical  use  of  the 
name  of  part  of  the  body. 


MODERN  ENGLISH 

tary  in  the  physical  sense  to  the  meaning  aloof,  sullen,  in  the 
spiritual  or  mental  sense,  is  an  easy  transition. 

(3)  An  intellectual  word,  on  the  other  hand,  may  be  used 
to  designate  a  concrete  person  or  object,  as  the  word  wit,  in 
its  intellectual  sense  meaning  brilliance  or  ingenuity,  in  its 
concrete  sense,  as  in  the  sentence  "  He  is  a  great  wit,"  mean- 
ing "  a  witty  man."     So  trust  in  its  intellectual  sense  is  the 
name  of  an  abstract  quality,  in  its  concrete  sense  it  is  the 
name  of  a  group  of  men  organized  for  certain  purposes  of 
business.      Dialectally  and  colloquially,  also,  the  abstract 
noun  misery  takes  a  concrete  sense  in  sentences  like  "I've 
got  a  misery  in  my  back  " ;  compare  also  the  use  of  pain 
as  both  abstract  and  concrete. 

(4)  Words  appropriate  to  living  beings  may  be  transferred 
to  inanimate  objects.     This  process  is  frequently  exemplified 
in  poetry,  where  Ruskin  has  given  it  the  name  "pathetic 
fallacy."     Thus  Coleridge  in  The  Ancient  Manner  speaks  of 
4 'the  silly  buckets,"  and  Ruskin  quotes  such  lines  as  "  the 
cruel,  crawling  foam."  l    In  ordinary  colloquial  use  we  have 
such  phrases  as  "  a  dumb  waiter,"  "  a  blind  alley,"  "  a  crying 
need,"  etc.     These  are,  or  were  originally,  very  strong  meta- 
phors and  had  the  effect  of  personifying  the  objects  to  which 
they  applied.    They  differ  thus  from  the  examples  given  under 
(1),  such  as  the  "  leg  of  a  chair,"  which  is  a  perfectly  matter- 
of-fact  use  of  the  word  "  leg." 

(5)  Words  appropriate  to  one  group  of  sense  perceptions 
may  be  extended  in  their  use  by  applying  them  to  a  different 
group,  as  when  we  speak  of  "  aloud  color,"  or  "  a  sweet 
voice,"  "a  dull  sound,"  "a  bright  melody,"  etc. 


1  Modern  Painters,  Part  IV,  Chapter  XII :  "  The  foam  is  not  cruel, 
neither  does  it  crawl.  The  state  of  mind  which  attributes  to  it  these  char- 
acters of  a  living  creature  is  one  in  which  the  reason  is  unhinged  by  grief. 
All  violent  feelings  have  the  same  effect.  They  produce  in  us  a  falseness  in 
all  our  impressions  of  external  things,  which  I  would  generally  characterize 
as  the  '  Pathetic  Fallacy.' " 


ENGLISH   WORDS  197 

8.  Differentiation  by  Functional  Change.     One  of 

the  most  interesting  of  the  ways  in  which  our  vocabu- 
lary is  given  variety  in  use  is  by  the  passage  of  a  word 
from  one  part  of  speech  to  another.  Modern  English  is 
especially  free  in  its  use  of  this  kind  of  differentiation, 
or  specialization  in  words,  as  is  shown  by  the  following 
illustrations : 1 

(1)  Adjectives  become  nouns,  as  in  "  the  good,  the  true,  and 
the  beautiful ";  "  so  much  to  the  good  "  ;  "  he  has  gone  to  the 
bad  " ;  "  he  was  ordered  to  the  front " ;   "  a  nickel "  =  a  five- 
cent  piece;      "  a  pug  "  =  a  pug  dog;     "the  young  of  the 
eagle  " ;  "  the  village  green  "  ;  "a  square  "  —  a  city  block  or 
square;    "the  blues";    "the  pine  barrens"    This  happens 
frequently  in  the  case  of  proper  adjectives,  which  lose  their 
adjective  value  and  become  pure  nouns,  as  china,  from  "  China 
ware  " ;  calico,  from  "  Calicut  cloth"  ;  bantam,  from  "  Ban- 
tam fowl." 

(2)  Nouns  become  adjectives,  as  in  "  a  New  York  bank,'1 
"  a  beefsteak  dinner,"  "  a  dinner  card,"  "  an  insurance  agent," 
"  a  railway  official,"  "a  city  superintendent,"  "  a  water  fam- 
ine," etc. 2 

1  Note  how  closely  some  words  in  Modern  English,  because  of  the  vari- 
ous functional  and  figurative  values  which  they  may  have,  have  come  to 
approach  the  use  of  root-words  in  their  ability  to  express  a  large  group  of 
related  ideas.  The  word  head,  for  example,  may  be  a  noun  naming  the 
part  of  the  body ;  or  the  beginning  of  anything,  as  the  head  of  a  liat,  or 
page,  or  river  or  lake ;  or  anything  shaped  somewhat  like  a  head,  as  a 
head  of  cabbage,  the  head  of  a  drum,  the  head  of  a  nail  or  screw,  etc.  It 
may  also  be  a  verb,  as  in  the  sentence,  "  He  heads  the  list,"  or  "  This 
lettuce  heads  early,"  i.  e.,  makes  a  head.  It  may  further  be  an  adjective, 
as  in  "  the  head  waters  of  the  rivers,"  "  the  head  clerk/'  "  the  head  (cf. 
chief,  from  Latin  caput  through  French  chef)  difficulty,"  etc. 

1  Some  of  these  examples  are  essentially  the  same  as  the  noun  -f  noun 
compounds  described  above,  differing  only  in  that  they  are  not  written  with 
hyphens.  This  method  of  differentiation  is  sometimes  adversely  criticised 
by  grammarians  and  rhetoricians.  It  is,  however,  one  of  the  most  active 
methods  of  word  change  in  present  English,  and  the  language  would  be 
much  the  poorer  without  this  capability. 


198  MODERN  ENGLISH 

(3)  Verbs  become  nouns,  as  in  "a  brand  of  goods,"  from 
Ihe  act  of  branding  ;  "  a  drive  of  logs  "  ;   "  the  kelp  "  (i.  e., 
the  servants)  ;   "  to  give  one  a  lift  "  :    '  '&Jind  "  ;   "  the  domi- 
nant, primordial  beast  who  had  made  his  kill  and  found  it 
good  "  (London,  Call  of  the  Wild)  ;    "  Yield  them  permit  to 
eat  the  sacred  corn  "    (Aldrich,  Judith  and  Holof ernes) ;    "a 
combine." 

(4)  Nouns  become  verbs,  as  in  "  to  house  the  poor"  ;  "to 
carpet  a  room  " ;  "  to  stone  a  cat " ;  "  to  bridge  a  stream  "  ; 
"  to  board  a  ship  or  train." 

(5)  Pronouns  become  nouns,  as  in    (i  In  the  south  only 
the  shes  with  young  and  the  fat  he-bears  retire  for  the  sleep." 
(Roosevelt,  Hunting  the  Grisly,  p.  54.) 

(6)  Adverbs  become  verbs,  as  in  "  He  downed  his  oppo- 
nent the  first  round  " ;   "  Then  he  offs  with  his  hat." 

(7)  Adverbs  become  nouns,  as  "  Now  is  the  accepted  time  "  • 
"  A  noise  was  heard  from  without  "  ;  "  I  have  just  come  from 
there." 

(8)  Adjectives  become  verbs,  as  in  "  The  house  fronts  the 
street " ;  "  Acid  sours  milk '' ;  "  Who  will  brown  the  toast  ?  " 
"  He  backed  the  horse,"  etc. 

(9)  Prepositions   become   adjectives,    as   in    "  a  through 
train";   "  the  under  dog";    "  by  product";    in  bystander, 
byword,  etc.,  the  preposition  has  been  united  to  another  word 
forming  a  close  compound.     The  word  by-laws  is  sometimes 
mistakenly  supposed  to  be  made  up  of  the  preposition  by  + 
the  noun  law,  the  compound  having  the  sense  of  secondary  or 
minor  law.     In  origin,  however,  the  element  by  in  by-law  is  a 
Scandinavian  word  meaning  "town,"  as  it  appears  in  place- 
names  like  Whitby,  Derby,  etc.     The  original  meaning  of  the 
compound  was  therefore  "  town  law."  and  this,  in  distinction 
to  the  general  or  national  law,  readily  passed  Over  into  the 
derived  modern  meaning  of  secondary  or  minor  law. 

(10)  Adverbs  become  adjectives,  as  in  "the  off  horse"; 
*  the  then  Bishop  of  Lichfield  "  (Newman,  Apologia,  p.  31)  * 


ENGLISH  WORDS  19& 

u  waiting  for  the  down  mail  to  Falmouth  "  (ibid.,  p.  32)  ; 
"  outer  darkness  "  ;  "  over  rocks  and  down  timber  "  (Roose- 
velt, Hunting  the  Grisly,  p.  59). 

(11)  Verbs  usually  intransitive   become  transitive,  as  in 
"Cornell  will  row  Wisconsin ";     "to  walk  a  horse";    "to 
walk  the  streets  "  ;    "  to  jump  a  fence  "  ;    cf .  Whitman,  in 
Captain,  my  Captain:  "I  walk  the  deck  my  captain  lies." 

(12)  Verbs  usually  transitive  become  intransitive,  as  in 
"I  don't  sing,  but  I  'm  fond  of  playing." 

To  some  slight  extent  we  also  have  differentiation  by 
accent  in  Modern  English.  Thus  we  have  the  verbs  perfume', 
compound',  contract',  present',  etc.,  with  the  corresponding 
couns  per'fume,  com/pound,  con'tract,  pres'ent,  etc.  Some- 
times the  difference  in  accent  is  accompanied  by  other  slight 
differences  of  form  and  pronunciation,  as  in  the  adjectives 
hu'man,  humane',  an' tic,  antique'. 

9.  Slang.  Any  consideration  of  creation  in  language, 
or  the  differentiation  in  the  meanings  of  words,  must 
necessarily  take  up  the  question  of  slang.  There  is  an 
initial  difficulty,  however,  in  that  it  is  extremely  hard  to 
give  a  satisfactory  definition  of  slang.  The  matter  is 
very  largely  one  of  individual  feeling.  What  is  re- 
garded as  slang  by  one  person  is  regarded  as  perfectly 
correct,  colorless  English  by  another.  Thus  the  phrases 
"  on  the  wrong  tack,"  "  to  go  back  on  one,"  or  "  to  give 
oneself  away,"  etc.,  may  be  regarded  by  one  speaker 
merely  as  good  vigorous  colloquial  English,  whereas 
another  over-cautious  speaker  may  reject  them  as  utterly 
reprehensible  and  "  slangy. "  So  also  the  phrase  "out  of 
sight "  acquired  a  certain  slang  use  which  for  a  time  was 
widely  current ;  but  certainly  no  one  would  think  that 
Lowell  meant  to  use  the  phrase  with  this  value  in  the 
following  lines  from  the  Vision  of  Sir  Launjal: 


200  MODERN   ENGLISH 

He  sculptured  every  summer  delight 
In  his  halls  and  chambers  out  of  sight. 

A  similar  illustration  is  to  be  found  in  the  use  of  "  fire  " 
in  the  sense  of  discharge  or  expel,  as  in  "  to  fire  a  person 
out  of  a  room  "  ;  exactly  the  same  occurs  in  Shakspere, 
without  any  of  the  connotation  of  slang,  in  the  following 
lines,  the  thought  of  which  is  the  presence  of  two  spirits, 
one  good  and  one  evil,  in  man's  heart : 

Yet  this  shall  I  ne'er  know,  but  live  in  doubt, 
Till  my  bad  angel  fire  my  good  one  out. 

Sonnets,  cxliv. 

Indeed  the  feeling  for  slang  is  on  the  whole  of  rather 
modern  origin.  In  Shakspere's  day  and  earlier  the  lan- 
guage was  free  to  be  as  expressive  as  it  could  and  in 
any  way  in  which  it  could.  Slang  can  arise  only  when 
certain  things  are  not  permitted,  for  there  is  always  the 
flavor  of  forbidden  fruit  in  slang.  In  reading  early 
authors,  consequently,  one  is  frequently  struck  by  forms 
of  expression  which  would  have  been  slang  if  the  con- 
ventions of  the  time  had  been  more  rigid.  Thus  Chaucer 
(Parlement  of  Foules,  1.  595)  says :  There  been  mo  sterres, 
god  wot,  than  a  paire,  "  There  are  more  stars,  God  knows, 
than  a  pair,"  which  is  a  close  parallel  to  the  recent  slang 
expression,  "  There 's  more  than  one  pebble  on  the  beach." 
In  the  Digby  Plays  (p.  14, 1.  338)  occurs  the  expression, 
thou  to  make  me  a  knight,  that  were  on  the  newe,  which 
cannot  fail  to  remind  one  of  the  modern  "  on  the  side." 
An  Elizabethan  critic,  Richard  Carew,  wrote  a  little 
treatise  on  the  excellency  of  the  English  tongue,  about 
the  year  1595,  in  which  he  illustrates  the  richness  of  the 
English  language  by  showing  in  how  many  different 
ways  we  can  get  rid  of  a  person;  his  list  is  as  follows, 


ENGLISH  WORDS  201 

and  it  is  interesting  to  see  how  many  of  his  phrases 
would  now  fall  under  the  general  condemnation  as 
slang:  " neither  cann  any  tongue  (as  I  am  pers waded) 
deliuer  a  matter  with  more  varietye  then  ours,  both 
plainely  and  by  prouerbes  and  Metaphors ;  for  example, 
when  wee  would  be  rid  of  one,  wee  vse  to  saye  Bee  going, 
trudge,  pack,  be  faring,  hence,  awaye,  shifte,  and,  by  cir- 
cumlocution, rather  your  roome  then  your  company e, 
Letts  see  your  backe,  com  againe  when  I  bid  you,  when 
you  are  called,  sent  for,  intreated,  willed,  desiered,  inuited, 
spare  vs  your  place,  another  in  your  steede,  a  shipp  of  salte 
for  you,  saue  your  credite,  you  are  next  the  doore,  the 
doore  is  open  for  you,  theres  noe  bodye  holdes  you,  no 
bodie  teares  your  sleeue,  etc."  l 

The  term  slang  is  sometimes  used  in  a  very  wide 
sense  to  include  all  those  characteristics  of  language 
that  one  disapproves  of  which  do  not  come  under  the 
head  of  bad  grammar  or  of  vulgar  and  improper  speech. 
Such  a  definition  of  slang,  however,  is  decidedly  too 
wide.  For  there  is  a  certain  group  of  words  with  very 
clearly  denned  characteristics  which  everybody  feels  as 
having  something  in  common,  a  spirit  or  tone,  to  which 
we  should  limit  the  term  slang.  To  fall  in  this  group 
a  word  must  possess  certain  elements  of  novelty  and 
originality  in  its  use,  it  must  be  of  a  somewhat  quaint, 
picturesque,  playful,  or  humorous  color,  and  above  all 
it  must  have  patness,  freshness,  and  timeliness  in  its 
applications.  Slang  words,  however,  are  always  more 
readily  felt  than  described,  and  the  best  way  to  consider 
them  is,  perhaps,  to  take  up  the  various  types  of  words 
which  fall  in  the  class. 

1  In  Gregory  Smith,  Elizabethan  Critical  Essays,  II,  2t2. 


202  MODERN  ENGLISH 

(1)  Counter  words  as  slang.  By  counter  words  are 
meant  such  words  as  are  chosen  by  common  social  un- 
derstanding to  do  service  for  a  great  variety  of  uses. 
These  words  thus  become  a  sort  of  blank  counter  for 
certain  ideas  to  which  we  do  not  then  give  exact  and 
definite  expression.  The  invention  of  such  words  is  a 
social  convenience ;  it  is  not  always  necessary  to  state 
precisely  what  we  mean,  and  it  is  therefore  often  con- 
venient to  have  an  accepted,  conventional  word  to  take 
the  place  of  a  specific  word.  Such  counter  words  in 
present  use  are  words  like  nice  (for  the  precise  meaning 
of  which  see  the  dictionary),  in  all  sorts  of  phrases,  as 
in  " a  nice  time,"  " a  nice  walk,"  "  a  nice  place,"  "a  nice 
day,"  "  a  nice  dinner,"  etc. ;  or  its  contrasting  counter 
word,  awful,  as  in  "  an  awful  job,"  "  awful  weather," 
"  an  awful  bore,"  etc.  Counter  words  because  of  their 
constant  use  tend  to  become  weakened  in  value,  to  be- 
come almost  colorless  in  meaning,  with  the  result  that 
they  indicate  merely  a  general  attitude  of  mind  of  the 
speaker  as  favorable  or  unfavorable  to  the  objects  spoken 
of.  Owing  to  this  tendency,  it  frequently  becomes 
necessary  to  replace  old  worn-out  counter  words  by  new 
ones.  At  the  time  of  the  present  writing,  for  example, 
the  adjective  fierce  is  much  used  as  a  general  slang  term 
of  disapproval ;  anything  which  is  unpleasant  is  fierce. 
Whether  or  not  fierce  will  become  a  generally  used 
counter  word,  like  nice  and  awful,  and  will  thus  weaken 
to  a  vague  general  meaning,  time  only  will  tell.  The 
likelihood  is,  however,  that  in  a  short  time  it  will  alto- 
gether disappear.  Looking  back  over  only  a  few  years, 
one  can  recall  numbers  of  counter  words,  or  phrases, 
which  sprang  up  and  were  used  for  a  time  and  then 


ENGLISH   WORDS  20S 

dropped  completely  out.  If  we  examine  the  literature 
of  earlier  periods  we  shall  find  that  each  had  its  own 
counter  words.  Thus  in  the  eighteenth  century  the 
counter  word  used  in  commendatory  senses  equivalent 
to  our  nice  was  the  word  elegant.  It  was  used  in  all  the 
ways  in  which  nice  is  now  used,  and  in  certain  directions 
its  use  was  more  extensive,  as  in  such  phrases  as  "  the 
elegant  author  of  the  Essay  on  Man,"  "An  elegant  essay, 
novel,  or  poem,"  etc.  It  has  persisted  to  the  present  time, 
mainly  in  the  phrase,  "  An  elegant  time."  In  the  Eliza- 
bethan period  the  favorite  counter  word,  equivalent  to 
nice  and  elegant,  was  fair.  Such  a  play  as  Shakspere's 
Love's  Labour  's  Lost,  which  is  very  contemporary  in  its 
diction,  is  full  of  illustrations ;  note  especially  the  begin- 
ning of  scene  one  in  act  four.  The  variety  of  its  use 
may  perhaps  be  better  illustrated  by  the  following  pas- 
sage in  prose,  taken  from  one  of  the  works  of  a  contem- 
porary of  Shakspere : 

"  There  is  now  building  in  Amiens  a  very  faire  Nunnery 
for  the  same  Carmelite  Nunnes,  which  do  now  live  in 
another  Nunnery  that  is  more  obscure  and  less  delightful 
for  their  contemplation.  They  remove  shortly  from  that 
wherein  they  now  live  to  that  which  is  now  building,  because 
it  is  a  more  private  and  solitary  place  for  their  meditation, 
and  the  service  of  God.  Unto  this  new  Nunnery  there 
belongeth  a  faire  garden  full  of  fine  spacious  walkes,  beset 
with  sundry  pleasant  trees.  I  was  at  the  monastery  of  the 
Capucins,  in  whose  church  there  were  two  faire  altars,  with 
many  pictures  of  Christ  and  Saint  Francis.  They  have  a 
faire  garden  belonging  to  their  Monastery,  neare  to  which 
they  have  a  Cloister,  wherein  are  hanged  many  religious 
pictures,  emblemes,  and  posies  tending  to  mortification. 

"  At  Saint  Germans  Church  there  is  a  wondrous  rich  altar, 


204  MODERN  ENGLISH 

very  abundantly  decked  with  precious  ornaments,  especially 
a  gilt  Tabernacle.  This  is  the  fairest  Altar  by  many  degrees 
that  I  saw  in  all  the  City. 

"  The  towne  house  which  is  very  neare  to  the  gate  as  you 
come  into  the  city  from  Pickeney  is  very  /air,  being  three 
Btories  high,  and  built  with  bricke,  having  goodly  armes 
in  it. 

"The  fairest  cage  of  birds  that  I  saw  in  al  France,  was 
at  the  signe  of  the  Ave  Maria  in  Amiens,  the  workmanship 
whereof  was  very  curious  with  gilt  wyres. 

"  A  little  on  this  side  Paris,  even  at  the  towns  end,  there  is 
thefayrest  Gallowes  that  ever  I  saw,  built  upon  a  little  hil- 
lock called  Mount  Falcon,  which  consisteth  of  f ourteene  fair 
pillars  of  free-stone :  this  gallowes  was  made  in  the  time  of 
the  Guisian  Massacre,  to  hang  the  Admiral  of  France  Chatil- 
lion,  who  was  a  Protestant,  Anno  Dom.  1572."  1 

The  question  of  the  attitude  which  we  shall  assume 
towards  the  use  of  these  counter  words  is  of  considerable 
interest  and  importance.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  we 
should  avoid  using  such  words  of  generalized  meaning, 
that  to  do  so  impoverishes  thought,  and  that  we  should 
always  strive  to  use  definite  and  specific  words.  But 
suppose  the  idea  we  want  to  express  is  not  definite  and 
specific,  but  vague  and  general?  Suppose  we  meet  a 
person  casually  and  in  friendly  salutation  remark  that  it 
is  a  nice  day  ?  Does  not  the  word  nice  express  there  all 
that  it  is  necessary  to  express  ?  It  shows  that  we  have 
in  general  kindly  feelings  towards  the  weather  and  no- 
body cares  particularly  whether  it  is  because  of  the  warm- 
ness  or  coolness  or  wetness  or  dryness  of  it.  In  short, 
there  are  many  occasions  when  we  need  to  express  indefi- 

1  Coryat's  Crudities,  reprinted  from  the  edition  of  1611,  London,  1776, 
Vol.  I,  p.  19.  The  concluding  paragraph  is  on  p.  26. 


ENGLISH  WORDS  205 

nite  and  conventional  ideas  or  feelings,  and  for  this  pur- 
pose we  need  indefinite  and  conventional  words.  There 
is,  therefore,  a  proper  time  for  the  use  of  counter  words, 
and  then  no  other  words  would  take  their  place.  When 
the  mind  has  occasion  to  use  definite  and  specific  words 
to  express  its  thought  it  will  look  about  and  find  these 
words ;  but  the  person  who  never  uses  any  other  than 
colorless,  indefinite,  and  general  words  does  so  because 
the  character  of  his  thought  is  always  colorless,  com- 
monplace, and  vague.  The  corrective,  therefore,  of  a 
too  vague  and  general  use  of  words  is  not  merely  to 
discontinue  the  use  of  the  offending  words,  but  to  have 
something  really  definite  to  say. 

(2)  Slang  as  picturesque  metaphor.  This  is  probably 
the  source  of  the  largest  number  of  slang  words.  They 
originate  from  a  striking  and  novel  metaphor  which  is 
almost  always  of  a  ridiculous,  or  at  least  humorous,  color, 
because  of  a  grotesque  contrast  between  the  literal  and 
the  figurative  meanings  of  the  word.  Thus  recent  slang 
has  taken  the  two  nouns  bird  and  peachy  and  has  used 
them  in  all  manner  of  commendatory  senses ;  anything 
admirable  or  excellent  may  be  spoken  of  as  a  bird  or  a 
peach.  A  person  who  expresses  an  opinion  differing 
from  one's  own  may  be  said  "  to  be  off  his  base,"  a  met- 
aphor  apparently  taken  from  base -ball.  Or  one  whose 
mental  operations  are  peculiar  is  described  as  "  cracked," 
or  "  off  his  nut,"  both  being  derived  from  the  metaphor 
of  the  head  as  a  nut.  The  word  kick  is  used  in  a  slang, 
metaphorical  sense  "  to  oppose  "  or  "  to  object."  Origi- 
nally used  of  buckling  a  saddle  to  a  horse's  back,  the 
word  cinch,  in  its  slang  use,  now  means  to  have  a  tight 
hold  on  anything,  a  sure  thing,  or  an  easy  time,  etc.  The 


206  MODERN  ENGLISH 

metaphorical  use  of  fire,  probably  from  the  figure  of 
firing  a  gun,  has  already  been  mentioned ;  with  it  may 
be  compared  the  similar  use  of  bounce.  The  word  pull 
passes  in  slang  from  its  literal  meaning  to  the  metaphor- 
ical one  of  influence.  In  the  same  general  group  belong 
the  words  graft,  grafter,  which  literally  apply  to  the 
grafting  of  something  extraneous  to  an  original  stock, 
as  a  twig  on  a  branch,  but  metaphorically  to  the  person 
who  gets  more  than  the  legitimate  income  from  his  posi- 
tion. In  a  recent  trial  a  motion  to  dismiss  a  slander 
suit  was  made  on  the  ground  that  grafter  was  not  a  recog- 
nized word  of  the  knguage.  The  judge  wisely  overruled 
the  motion,  and  if  he  had  not,  the  report  goes  on  to  say, 
"  what  legal  redress  would  a  man  have  when  called  a 
muckraker  or  a  mollycoddle,  both  of  which  words  are  of 
much  later  vogue  than  grafter  f  "  Illustrations  of  these 
metaphorical  slang  creations  might  be  increased  indefi- 
nitely. Each  day  in  each  community  the  number  is 
added  to.  Most  of  such  inventions  have  a  very  short 
existence ;  they  take  the  popular  fancy  for  a  time,  are 
excessively  used,  and  then  are  crowded  out  by  some  new 
novelty.  It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  this 
method  of  word  creation  by  the  invention  of  slang 
through  metaphor  is  a  natural  linguistic  process  that 
has  gone  on  for  a  long  time,  that  to  it  the  language 
owes  much  of  its  effectiveness  and  expressiveness,  and 
that  as  a  natural  helpful  linguistic  process,  our  attitude 
towards  it  should  not  be  too  scornful.  It  needs  only 
the  acceptance  of  usage,  for  example,  to  make  a  good, 
expressive  word  of  the  slang  word  kick.  In  many  in- 
stances words  which  were  originally  striking  and  pic- 
turesque metaphors  have  been  accepte4  into  convex 


ENGLISH  WORDS  207 

tional  good  use,  as,  for  example,  the  word  sulky,  the 
name  of  a  vehicle,  first  used  because  the  vehicle  being 
one-seated  suggested  the  idea  of  selfishness  and  sulki- 
ness.  Numerous  other  examples  have  already  been 
given  under  the  discussion  of  differentiation  by  metaphor. 
The  main  reason  why  slang  words  do  not  now  make 
their  way  into  good  use  so  freely  as  they  did  formerly, 
is  that  our  standards  and  conventions  in  language  have 
become  more  fixed.  We  are  inclined  to  estimate  lan- 
guage not  immediately  from  the  point  of  view  of  its 
power  and  value  in  the  expression  of  thought  and  feel- 
ing, as  was  the  tendency  in  Shakspere's  day,  but  from 
the  point  of  view  of  its  agreement  or  disagreement  with 
the  preceding  traditional  use  of  the  language.  In  what 
we  call  the  lower  forms  of  society,  however,  for  ex- 
ample, among  street  Arabs  and  gamins,  such  a  thing 
as  the  idea  of  slang  does  not  exist.  To  another  person 
their  speech  may  be  very  slangy,  because  it  is  contrary 
to  the  customs  and  traditions  which  he  has  accepted  as 
established  and  correct.  But  to  the  boy  or  man  on  the 
street  all  language  is  used  merely  for  the  sake  of  ex- 
pression; to  him  that  is  its  only  purpose  and  justifica- 
tion, and  he  consequently  feels  free  to  create  and 
change  as  much  as  he  pleases.  In  other  words,  lan- 
guage is  more  likely  to  be  a  natural,  growing,  develop- 
ing medium  of  communication  among  the  untrained 
and  unconventional  than  it  is  among  the  educated  and 
conventional. 

(3)  Slang  as  cant  phraseology.  Every  profession,  or 
every  group  of  people  engaged  in  the  same  activity,  tends 
to  develop  a  vocabulary  peculiar  to  itself,  which  we  may 
call  a  class,  or  technical,  or  cant  vocabulary.  It  is  the 


208  MODERN  ENGLISH 

professional  jargon  of  the  respective  groups  of  people. 
Thus  the  stock  markets  have  invented  a  great  number 
of  professional  words  and  phrases,  such  as  bull  and  bear  ; 
one  is  long  on  a  certain  stock  when  one  is  well  provided 
with  it,  and  short  on  it  when  one  is  inadequately  pro- 
vided ;  a  deal  by  which  one  person  is  shut  out  of  a  cer- 
tain combination  is  known  as  a  freeze  out ;  and  so  with 
many  other  words  and  phrases.  Another  group  of  per- 
sons which  has  developed  a  very  rich  cant  slang  vocabu- 
lary is  the  college  and  school  group.  The  college  boy 
flunks  on  examination,  or  makes  a  fluke  of  a  recitation; 
when  he  or  his  professor  talks  vaguely  and  beside  the 
point,  he  drools,  and  so  on  indefinitely.  Still  other 
groups  which  make  frequent  use  of  cant  terms  are 
sportsmen  of  various  kinds,  the  race-track,  the  ken- 
nel, the  base-ball  and  foot-ball  field,  for  example,  each 
having  its  own  special  vocabulary ;  and  perhaps  more 
than  any  other,  the  floating  population  of  crooks  and 
tramps.  In  this  last  group  we  need  only  mention  such 
words  as  crook,  hobo,  bum,  booze,  etc.,  to  suggest  hosts 
of  others.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  cant  vocabulary 
of  one  group  is  largely  unintelligible  to  another  group, 
the  cant  terms  of  the  stock-markets  being  understood 
only  by  those  in  that  business.  It  is  obvious  that 
the  cant  terms  of  a  profession  or  of  any  group  of  people 
may  cease  to  have  slang  value  to  the  people  who  habitu- 
ally use  them,  becoming  to  them  merely  the  literal 
names  for  the  activities  of  their  profession  and  thus  a 
part  of  their  technical  vocabulary.  Words  of  this  sort, 
however,  seldom  pass  beyond  the  limits  of  their  group 
into  general  use. 

(4)  Slang  as  picturesque  sound.     Often  a  slang  word 


ENGLISH   WORDS  209 

does  not  apparently  have  any  clear  logical  meaning,  but 
comes  into  use  merely  because  its  sound  is  amusing  or 
suggestive  of  some  idea.  Such  a  word  is  the  now  cur- 
rent skidoo,  the  present-day  equivalent  of  the  older  ske- 
daddle. Similar  words  are  mosey,  meaning  to  walk 
slowly  and  aimlessly;  snide  meaning  cunning,  tricky; 
biff,  a  blow ;  plunk,  first  a  silver  dollar,  perhaps  from  the 
sound  of  it  as  it  falls  on  a  counter,  then  merely  dollar ; 
flub  or  chump,  a  more  or  less  heavy,  stupid  person.  In 
this  class  might  be  included  language  abbreviations,  like 
prof,  doc,  exam,  for  professor,  doctor,  examination;  phiz 
for  physiognomy;  and  such  language  mutilations  as 
bizny  for  business,  picture-askew  for  picturesque,  etc. 
Many  slang  words  seem  to  be  suggested  by  the  high- 
sounding  Latin  vocabulary,  such  as  bogus;  spondulix ; 
slantendicularly  ;  catawamus  ;  bamboozle  ;  cahoots ;  di- 
does ;  hocus  pocus,  etc.  Occasionally  an  actual  Latin 
phrase,  for  example,  non  compos  mentis,  or  simply  non 
compos,  is  used  as  a  slang  expression  by  persons  who 
know  nothing  of  the  origin  of  the  phrase. 

10.  Attitude  towards  Slang.  Since  slang  is  not  an 
abnormal  or  diseased  growth  in  language,  but  arises  in 
the  language  just  as  other  words  arise,  there  is  no  reason 
why  such  words  in  themselves  should  be  condemned. 
Intrinsically  they  are  not  bad,  but  rather  good,  in  so  far 
as  they  show  activity  of  mind  and  a  desire  to  be  vigor- 
ously expressive  on  the  part  of  the  speaker.  But  since 
from  the  circumstances  of  their  development  and  use, 
slang  words  carry  with  them  a  certain  individual  color, 
flavor,  or  tone,  whatever  we  may  wish  to  call  it,  that  gives 
them  a  marked  distinctive  value,  the  use  of  them  sbjould 
be  determined  by  their  appropriateness  to  the  mood  or 

14 


210  MODERN  ENGLISH 


Perhaps  we  should 
make  a  distinction  between  speaking  and  writing,  allow- 
ing ourselves  somewhat  more  liberty  in  speaking  than  in 
writing,  in  neither  instance,  however,  completely  sup- 
pressing the  creative  instinct  in  language.  In  answer  to 
the  frequent  charge  that  "  Slang  is  vulgar,"  we  may  say 
that  slang  in  itself  is  no  more  vulgar  than  other  words 
of  the  language,  that  there  is  nothing  inherently^vulgar 
in  a  slang  word.  A  word  is  vulgar  only  when  the  idea 
which  it  expresses  or  connotes  is  vulgar,  and  this  is  true 
of  other  words  as  well  as  slang.  But  that  slang  words 
often  carry  with  them  by  suggestion  or  connotation  ideas 
or  shades  of  thought  that  may  fairly  be  called  vulgar,  or 
at  least  undignified,  cannot  be  denied.  The  reason  for 
this  is  that  the  slang  words  often  come  from  the  lan- 
guage of  a  grade  or  of  classes  of  society  the  activities  of 
which  as  a  whole  are  looked  upon  as  vulgar  or  undigni- 
fied. On  the  other  hand  certain  slang  words  may  carry 
with  them  exactly  the  opposite  connotation  when  they 
are  the  cant  terms  (such  words  as  smart  set,  swagger, 
swell,  etc.)  current  among  people  who  are  regarded,  or 
who  regard  themselves,  as  leaders  in  matters  of  fashion 
and  conventional  manners.  A  second  statement  that 
"  Slang  limits  vocabulary  "  might  be  accepted  if  it  were 
true  that  vocabulary  limits  thought.  But  the  true  state- 
ment is  that  vocabulary  is  the  expression,  the  measure 
of  thought,  and  its  extent  and  character  is  determined 
by  the  extent  and  variety  of  thought  itself.  To  say  that 
slang  limits  vocabulary  is  literally  to  say  that  vocabulary 
limits  vocabulary.  That  loose  and  lazy  thinkers  are  in- 
clined to  use  one  word  to  express  many  shades  of  thought 
is  true  not  only  in  the  use  of  slang  words,  but  of  many 


ENGLISH   WORDS  211 

other  words  of  the  language.1  It  may  be  said  in  general, 
however,  that  the  continual  use  of  slang,  since  much  of 
its  effect  depends  upon  a  kind  of  temporary  conventional 
smartness,  is  a  fair  indication  of  a  cheap  and  shallow 
mind.  The  slang  habit  is  vicious  because  it  cheapens 
by  constant  use  an  activity  of  language  which  is  needed, 
but  which,  to  produce  its  proper  effect,  must  be  employed 
only  when  it  is  needed.  Slang  is  nearly  always  con- 
scious in  its  origin  and  in  its  use.  It  is  almost  always 
more  expressive  than  the  situation  demands.  It  is  in- 
deed a  kind  of  hyperesthesia  in  the  use  of  language.  It 
differs  thus  from  idiom,  which  is  normally  expressive. 
"  To  laugh  in  your  sleeve  "  is  idiom  because  it  arises  out 
of  a  natural  situation  :  it  is  a  metaphor  derived  from  the 
picture  of  one  raising  his  sleeve  to  his  face  to  hide  a 
smile,  a  metaphor  which  arose  naturally  enough  in  early 
periods  when  sleeves  were  long  and  flowing;  but  "to 
talk  through  your  hat "  is  slang,  not  only  because  it  is 
new,  but  also  because  it  is  a  grotesque  exaggeration  of 
the  truth. 

11.  Word  Borrowing  in  English.  The  background 
and  the  basis  of  the  English  vocabulary  is  of  course 
Teutonic  or  Germanic,  by  inheritance,  just  as  its  inflec- 
tional and  general  grammatical  systems  are.  From  the 
earliest  historical  times,  however,  this  Teutonic  base  has 
been  enriched  by  the  borrowing  of  words  from  other  lan- 
guages, sometimes  more  rapidly  and  abundantly  than  at 
others,  dependent  upon  the  extent  to  which  the  English, 

1  Cf.  the  various  loose  meanings  of  the  word^/ur,  such  as  to  arrange,  to 
mend,  to  settle  or  plant  firmly,  and  even  to  punish,  as  in  "  1 11  fix  him/* 
The  corrective  of  this  fault  is  the  determination  and  definition  of  the 
thought  so  clearly  that  more  discriminating  terms  must  be  used  to  express 
it  adequately. 


212  MODERN  ENGLISH 

or  their  Anglian,  Jutish,  and  Saxon  ancestors,  were 
brought  into  contact  with  other  peoples. 

The  first  historic  borrowings  which  we  can  clearly 
trace  are  borrowings  from  Latin  while  the  Angles,  Jutes, 
and  Saxons  were  still  resident  on  the  Continent. 
Words  of  this  sort  are  the  common  possession  of  a 
number  of  Germanic  languages.  Examples  are  wine, 
from  Old  English  win,  Latin  vinum ;  monger  (as  in  fish- 
monger), Old  English  manger -e,  Latin  mango,  to  buy  or 
sell ;  pound,  Old  English  pund,  Latin  pondo  ;  wall,  Old 
English  weall,  Latin  vallum  ;  street,  Old  English  street, 
Latin  strata  (via) ;  and  a  few  others.  Not  many  words 
were  taken  over  from  the  Latin  at  this  early  period, 
those  that  were  borrowed  being  chiefly  commercial  terms, 
like  monger,  pound,  etc.,  and  military  terms  like  wall 
and  street,  the  Roman  streets  or  roads  being  built  prim- 
arily to  facilitate  the  passage  of  troops  from  one  part 
of  the  Empire  to  another. 

12.  Celtic  Borrowings.  After  the  migration  to 
England  of  those  Continental  tribes  which  later  consti- 
tuted the  Anglo-Saxon  people,  the  language  and  the 
people  with  which  they  were  first  brought  into  contact 
and  from  which  we  should  expect  them  to  borrow  words 
were  the  native  Celtic  language  and  the  Celts.  The  re- 
lation of  the  Celts  to  the  Anglo-Saxons  was  that  of  a 
subdued  race  to  its  conquerors,1  and  we  should  hardly 
expect,  therefore,  that  the  Anglo-Saxons  would  borrow 
very  abundantly  from  the  Celts.  The  tendency  would  be 
in  the  other  direction,  for  the  Celts,  the  weaker  and  less 

1  Of.  Old  English  wielen,  "  slave-woman/'  tihe  feminine  form  of  the 
name  Wealh,  "  Welsh/'  by  which  the  Anglo-Saxons  named  their  Celtic 
servants. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  213 

influential  people,  to  give  up  their  language  for  Old 
English.  The  Anglo-Saxon  would  feel  neither  neces- 
sity nor  inclination  to  borrow  from  the  Celt.  And  in 
fact,  so  far  as  we  are  able  to  judge  now  from  the  Celtic 
words  used  in  the  literature  of  the  earlier  periods  that 
has  been  preserved,  the  influence  of  the  Celts  upon  the 
Anglo-Saxons  was  very  slight.  Scholars  have  been  able 
to  find  less  than  a  score  of  words  in  the  English  language 
before  the  eleventh  century  which  can  be  said  with  any 
degree  of  probability  to  have  been  derived  from  the 
Celtic.  Some  of  these,  for  example  the  word  dry  in  Old 
English,  meaning  "  magician,"  and  cognate  with  the  first 
syllable  of  druid,  have  disappeared  from  later  English. 
Others,  for  example  mattock,  which  it  was  formerly  sup- 
posed were  borrowed  from  Celtic,  have  been  shown  to  be 
Celtic  borrowings  from  English.  The  words  which  we 
can  be  reasonably  certain  were  borrowed  by  Old  English 
from  Celtic  and  which  are  still  found  in  Modern  English, 
are  very  few  in  number ;  among  them  the  following  are 
the  most  probable :  brock  (badger) ;  down  (a  hill) ; 
slough.  To  find  any  extensive  influence  of  Celtic  on 
English  we  must  turn  to  the  proper  names  of  the 
language,  such  as  the  names  of  rivers,  mountains,  dis- 
tricts, etc.,  many  of  which  naturally  retained  their 
original  Celtic  names.  This  is  especially  true  of  regions 
like  Devonshire  and  Cornwall  which  for  a  long  time 
resisted  the  attacks  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  and  thus  re- 
mained largely  Celtic  after  the  rest  of  southern  and  east- 
ern England  had  been  completely  Teutonized.1 

1  For  the  etymologies  of  the  place  names  of  England,  see  Taylor, 
Words  and  Places,  London,  1893,  and  Names  and  their  Histories,  London, 
1896. 


214  MODERN  ENGLISH 

It  should  be  remembered,  also,  in  estimating  the  Celtic 
element  in  English,  that  the  small  number  of  early 
Celtic  words  in  English  has  been  increased,  tho  not 
to  any  considerable  extent,  by  later  borrowings  from 
Irish,  as,  for  example,  brogue,  galore,  shamrock,  shillelagh 
spalpeen,  Tory,  usquebaugh,  etc. ;  from  Scotch,  in  such 
words  as  clan,  glen,  kail,  pibroch,  plaid,  slogan,  whiskey, 
etc. ;  and  from  Welsh  in  coracle,  cromlech,  flannel,  and  a 
few  others.  But  the  entire  number  of  Celtic  words  in 
English  is  surprisingly  small. 

13.  Latin  Borrowings  of  the  First  Period.  After 
the  settlement  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  in  England  and  the 
establishment  of  their  supremacy  over  the  Celts,  the 
first  great  event,  important  for  the  development  of  their 
civilization  and  language,  was  the  introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity and  of  Roman  civilization,  by  means  of  the 
Augustinian  mission  in  the  last  decade  of  the  sixth  cen- 
tury. The  Anglo-Saxons  were  thus  brought  into  direct 
contact  with  a  civilization  that  was  higher  than  their 
own,  and  by  the  same  principle  which  accounts  for 
the  slight  influence  of  Celtic  upon  Old  English,  we 
should  expect  a  strong  influence  of  Latin  upon  Old 
English.  There  is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the 
influence  of  Latin  was  profound.  The  Roman  mis- 
sionaries were  not  only  preachers,  they  were  also 
teachers.  One  of  their  first  projects  was  the  establish- 
ment of  schools  in  which  Anglo-Saxon  children  were  to 
be  educated  for  the  priesthood.  The  teachers  in  these 
schools  were  at  first  naturally  Romans,  or  at  least  not 
Anglo-Saxons ;  but  in  the  course  of  comparatively  a 
short  time  persons  of  pure  Anglo-Saxon  birth  attained 
distinction  as  teachers  and  scholars.  Of  these  we  may 


ENGLISH  WORDS  215 

mention  two,  Aldhelm,  born  about  650  and  dying  in  709, 
a  pupil  of  the  school  at  Canterbury,  who  was  the  author 
of  a  number  of  Latin  treatises  which  are  still  extant; 
and  Alcuin,  who  lived  from  about  735  to  804,  a  pupil  of 
the  cathedral  school  established  at  York.  Alcuin  has 
been  described  as  "  the  most  learned  man  of  his  age,"  l 
and  when  Charlemagne  wished  to  establish  schools  at 
his  own  court,  he  invited  Alcuin  to  become  master  of 
them,  a  post  which  he  held  from  782  to  790.  Latin 
learning  was  also  cultivated  by  other  Anglo-Saxons,  as, 
for  example,  the  Venerable  Bede  (c.  673-735),  the  author 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  English  People  (His- 
toria  Ecclesiastica  gentis  Anglorum) ;  King  Alfred  (849- 
901),  who  translated  many  Latin  works  into  English ; 
and  jElfric  (c.  955-1020),  author  of  many  treatises  both 
in  Latin  and  in  English.  A  natural  result  of  this  famil- 
iarity with  Latin  was  the  incorporation  of  a  consider- 
able number  of  Latin  words  into  the  English  vocabulary. 
It  has  been  estimated  that  before  the  year  1050  nearly 
four  hundred  words  are  found  in  extant  Old  English 
literature.2  As  we  should  expect,  many  of  these  words 
are  of  ecclesiastical  character,  the  new  religion  and  its 
organization  naturally  bringing  with  it  many  of  its  own 
words.  Words  of  this  sort  which  appear  in  the  Old 
English  period  and  have  persisted  in  use  to-day,  are 
bishop,  Lat.  episcopus ;  apostle,  Lat.  apostolus ;  alms, 
Lat.  eleemosyna  (which  in  turn  is  of  Greek  origin) ; 
creed,  Lat.  credo;  candel,  Lat.  candela ;  organ,  Lat. 
organum;  priest,  Lat.  presbyter. 

Another  large   group   is   made   up   of  words  which 

1  See  Sandys,  History  of  Classical  Scholarship,  Vol.  I,  p.  460. 

*  See  Toller,  Outlines  of  the  History  of  the  English  Language,  p.  79ft 


216  MODERN  ENGLISH 

might  be  called  scientific  or  learned  words,  as,  for  ex« 
ample,  names  of  plants,  as  cedar,  Lat.  cedrus  ;  box  (box- 
tree),  Lat.  buxus  ;  or  of  mathematical  divisions  of  space 
and  time,  as  calends,  Lat.  calendae ;  mile,  Lat.  milia ; 
noon,  Lat.  nona  (literally  the  ninth  hour  of  the  day)  ; 
meter,  Lat.  metrum.  The  Modern  English  tile,  which 
appears  as  Old  English  tigele,  from  Latin  tegula,  came 
into  use  in  English  when  the  object  itself  was  intro- 
duced by  the  Latins. 

The  number  of  words  of  familiar  daily  life  which 
passed  from  the  Latin  into  Old  English  was  relatively 
small.  Examples  are  such  words  as  butter,  Lat.  buty- 
rum;  cheese,  Lat.  caseus ;  kitchen,  Lat.  coquina ;  mill, 
Lat.  molina ;  cup,  Lat.  cuppa;  kettle,  Lat.  catillus.  A 
number  of  these  words  were  plainly  taken  over  because 
of  the  superiority  of  the  monastery  cooks  and  cooking 
over  the  native,  just  as  to-day  English  has  a  kind  of 
kitchen-French  which  has  come  into  the  language  in  a 
similar  way. 

On  the  whole,  however,  the  influence  of  Latin  upon 
English  in  this  period  was  chiefly  upon  the  learned  lan- 
guage. But  even  here  the  influence  was  by  no  means 
revolutionary.  A  good  many  of  the  approximately  four 
hundred  words  occurring  in  texts  before  1050  are  used 
merely  as  glosses,  or  are  single  occurrences  obviously 
due  to  the  immediate  need  of  a  translator  to  find  a  word 
to  express  some  object  or  idea  in  his  original.  Old 
English,  in  the  main,  was  very  conservative  in  the  mat- 
ter of  borrowing  words.  Even  when  it  came  to  the 
expression  of  the  abstract  ideas  of  Christianity  or  of 
philosophy,  Anglo-Saxon  authors  endeavored  to  get 
along  with  their  own  native  stock  of  words  and  usually 


ENGLISH   WORDS  217 

succeeded  remarkably  well.  For  example,  in  King 
Alfred's  translation  of  a  philosophical  work  by  the  Latin 
writer  Boethius,  entitled  De  Oonsolatione  Philosophiae,  in 
a  typical  passage  of  about  660  words  discussing  the  ab- 
stract question  of  the  natare  of  God,  only  one  Latin  word, 
englas,  Lat.  angeli,  "  angels,"  occurs.  There  are  fre- 
quent words,  however,  of  abstract  meaning,  such  as  we 
usually  express  now  by  means  of  words  of  Latin  origin. 
Examples  are  mildheort,  literally  "  mild-heart,"  where  we 
should  now  probably  say  merciful  or  gracious,  both 
Latin  words  through  the  French;  rummod,  literally 
room-mood,  our  modern  magnanimous  ;  gdstllce,  literally 
ghost-like,  that  is,  spiritual ;  to-scead,  an  idea  which  we 
should  now  express  by  difference  or  discrimination; 
hwllwendtic,  literally  while  (i.  e.,  time),  wend  (turn),  and 
the  adjective  suffix  lie,  the  whole  meaning  temporal. 
And  so  with  many  other  words  it  could  be  shown  that 
where  Modern  English  uses  a  word  of  Latin  origin,  Old 
English  uses  its  own  native  words.  In  this  respect 
Old  English  consequently  resembles  modern  German 
more  nearly  than  it  does  Modern  English,  the  present 
tendency  in  English  being  to  express  new  ideas,  espe- 
cially of  a  somewhat  abstract  character,  by  means  of 
words  of  Latin  origin,  whereas  modern  German  gener- 
ally uses  native  words  for  this  purpose. 

14.  Borrowings  from  Scandinavian.  After  their 
settlement  in  England  the  Anglo-Saxons  came  into  re- 
newed contact  with  the  Scandinavians  of  the  Continent, 
the  Danes,  Northmen  or  Norse,  and  Swedes,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  Scandinavian  invasions  towards  the 
close  of  the  eighth  century.  These  invasions,  which  at 
first  were  merely  predatory,  soon  became  wars  of  actual 


218  MODERN   ENGLISH 

conquest  and  settlement.  By  the  heroic  efforts  of  Al- 
fred and  his  successors  the  Danes  were  kept  out  of 
Wessex  for  a  time,  but  the  other  parts  of  England,  es- 
pecially the  northern,  soon  succumbed  to  them,  and  with 
the  conquest  of  Cnut,  in  1016,  the  whole  of  England 
passed  under  Danish  control,  and  a  Danish  king  ruled 
at  the  same  time  both  Denmark  and  England.  The 
Danish  conquerors  of  England  readily  amalgamated  with 
the  native  Anglo-Saxon  population.  In  this  instance  the 
Anglo-Saxon  civilization,  having  passed  through  several 
centuries  of  peaceful  development,  was  the  higher  one, 
and  the  Danes  consequently  tended  to  give  up  their 
language  for  the  English  language.  The  two  languages, 
however,  were  much  alike,  and  it  is  often  difficult  to 
tell  when  a  word  is  pure  Old  English  and  when  it  is  of 
Scandinavian  origin.  Many  words,  so  far  as  their  form 
goes,  such  common  words,  for  example,  as  man,  wife, 
father,  mother,  folk,  house,  etc.,  might  as  well  be  of  Scan- 
dinavian as  of  Old  English  origin,  because  they  are  the 
same  in  both  languages.1  In  some  cases,  however,  ideas 
or  objects  of  Scandinavian  origin  have  left  their  impress 
plainly  upon  the  names  which  were  borrowed  to  desig- 
nate them.  A  number  of  words  were  taken  over  by  the 
Anglo-Saxons  which  have  not  persisted  in  the  language, 
as,  for  example,  words  connected  with  the  sea,  bar  da, 
cnear,  sce<fi,  different  kinds  of  ships ;  lid,  "  a  fleet " ;  ha, 
"  rowlock,"  etc.  The  Scandinavians  appear  also  to  have 
been  active  legal  organizers,  and  a  number  of  their  law 
terms  passed  over  to  Old  English,  such  as  the  word  law 
itself;  by-law  (for  the  etymology  of  by-,  see  above,  p. 
198);  thrall,  "slave";  the  verb  era ve ;  the  second  ele- 

1  See  Jespersen,  Growth  and  Structure  of  the  English  Language,  p.  65. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  219 

ment  in  hus-band  ;  and  others.  Other  Scandinavian  words 
in  English  are  the  nouns  sky,  skull,  skin,  skill,  haven  ;  the 
adjectives  meek,  low,  scant,  loose,  odd,  wrong,  ill,  ugly, 
rotten,  happy,  seemly ;  the  verbs  thrive,  die,  cast,  hit, 
take,  call,  scare,  scrape,  bask,  drown,  ransack,  gape; 
probably  the  pronouns  they,  their,  them ;  and  the  prepo- 
sitions fro  (to  and  fro)  and  till. 

These  words  it  will  be  observed  are  mostly  ordinary 
words  of  common  daily  intercourse,  and  in  this  respect 
they  differ  widely  from  the  Latin  words  that  were  taken  y 
over  in  the  Old  English  period.  From  the  nature  of  these 
Scandinavian  borrowings  we  may  infer  that  the  Scan- 
dinavians and  Anglo-Saxons  lived  together  on  a  plane  of 
equality;  their  relation  to  each  other  was  not  that  of 
learned  people  to  an  ignorant,  like  the  Latin  to  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  or  of  an  aristocratic  ruling  class  to  a  conquered 
and  ignoble  group  of  subjects,  like  the  Anglo-Saxons  to 
the  Celts.  Anglo-Saxons  and  Scandinavians,  moreover, 
lived  together  probably  without  much  realization  of  a 
difference  of  nationality.  This  being  the  case,  we  might 
expect  that  the  number  of  Anglo-Saxon  borrowings  from 
the  Scandinavians  would  be  much  greater  than  it  is. 
But  the  very  similarity  of  the  two  languages  and  of  the 
two  peoples  probably  tended  to  prevent  this.  The  Scan- 
dinavians apparently  gave  up  their  language  without 
much  struggle,  and  the  Anglo-Saxons  felt  little  need  of 
borrowing  words  from  their  Teutonic  kinsmen,  having 
already  an  equivalent  vocabulary  in  their  own  language. 

15.  Borrowings  from  the  French  in  the  Middle 
English  Period.  The  words  which  English  borrowed 
from  other  languages,  Celtic,  Latin,  and  Scandinavian, 
before  the  period  of  French  influence,  were  comparatively 


220  MODERN  ENGLISH 

few  in  number.  They  were  not  of  sufficient  importance 
to  change  in  any  considerable  degree  the  character  of  the 
language,  or  even  to  add  much  to  its  resources.  English 
remained  throughout  a  unilingual  tongue,  a  language 
made  up  largely,  or  almost  exclusively,  of  words  of  the 
same  linguistic  stock.  As  a  result,  however,  of  the 
French  influence  upon  English,  we  have  the  introduction 
of  a  large  number  of  words  of  French  origin,  so  large 
a  number  that  they  modify  the  general  character  and 
tone  of  the  language.  So  numerous  and  important  are 
these  French  innovations  that  English  changes  from  a 
unilingual  to  a  bilingual  tongue.  The  basis  of  the 
language  remained  English,  as  it  always  has  through  all 
stages  of  its  history,  but  the  accretions  to  this  original 
English  stock  were  of  such  a  character  as  to  make  Eng- 
lish sensitive  to  two  language  traditions,  one  Teutonic 
and  the  other  Romance.  This  bilingual  character  of  the 
language  of  the  Middle  English  period  has  been  trans- 
mitted to,  and  augmented  by,  later  periods  of  English,  so 
that  to-day  our  language  is  made  up  of  two  historically 
clearly  distinguishable,  tho  in  practice  closely  interwoven 
strands,  the  Romance  or  Latin,  and  the  English  or 
Teutonic,  strands. 

The  causes  which  brought  about  the  introduction  of 
French  words  into  Middle  English  were  partly  political, 
but  mainly  social.  The  relations  between  England  and 
France  first  became  politically  significant  in  the  time  of 
Edward  the  Confessor,  who  was  king  of  England  from 
1043  to  1066.  Edward  had  spent  the  early  years  of  his 
life  in  Normandy  in  France,  and  there  had  acquired 
French  sympathies  and  French  tastes.  When  he  be- 
came king,  these  sympathies  and  tastes  were  naturally 


ENGLISH   WORDS  221 

brought  over  by  him  to  his  English  court.  Moreover, 
Edward  filled  high  political  and  ecclestiastical  offices  in 
England  with  Normans,  in  the  face  of  the  disapproval  of 
the  English,  who  finally  rose  up  in  rebellion  hi  1052  and 
drove  these  French  favorites  from  the  country.  On  the 
death  of  Edward,  the  English  chose  Harold,  son  of  Earl 
Godwin,  a  very  powerful  English  nobleman,  as  their 
king.  But  a  cousin  of  Edward's,  William,  Duke  of 
Normandy,  made  claim  to  the  English  throne  on  the 
basis  of  some  promises  alleged  to  have  been  given  him 
by  Edward,  and  in  support  of  his  claims  he  appeared  on 
English  soil  with  an  army  at  his  back,  fought  and 
defeated  Harold  at  the  famous  battle  of  Hastings,  on 
October  14,  1066,  and  thus  a  duke  of  Normandy  became 
the  king  of  England  and  the  English  people. 

The  effect  of  the  Norman  Conquest  upon  English 
institutions  and  life  in  general  was  profound  and  wide- 
reaching.  In  the  first  place,  William  the  Conqueror  was 
a  strong  and  a  wise  executive.  He  became  the  real 
ruler  of  the  country,  he  introduced  a  system  of  govern- 
ment, and  saw  to  it  that  it  was  carried  out.  The  persons 
to  whom  offices  of  trust  were  assigned  were  at  first 
naturally  his  own  Norman  followers,  and  the  language 
of  the  court  and  the  higher  official  life  was  of  course 
Norman  French.  But  secondly,  and,  so  far  as  the  his- 
tory of  the  language  is  concerned,  more  importantly,  the 
Norman  Conquest  was  significant  because  it  changed 
England  from  an  insular,  self-dependent  country  to  one 
with  interests  beyond  itself.  Through  the  Norman 
Conquest  England  became  more  fully  acquainted  with 
continental  customs  and  habits  of  life,  with  French 
learning  and  with  French  literature,  than  it  had  been 


222  MODERN  ENGLISH 

before.  What  all  this  meant  to  England  can  hardly  be 
overestimated;  for  the  French  of  the  eleventh  and 
twelfth  centuries  were  undoubtedly  the  most  highly 
civilized  nation  of  Europe,  and  of  this  civilization  the 
English  thus  became  partakers  and  sharers. 

There  is  a  frequent  misapprehension  which  needs  to 
be  corrected,  concerning  the  attitude  which  William  the 
Conqueror  assumed  towards  the  English  language.  It 
is  often  assumed  that  William's  attitude  towards  English 
was  hostile,  that  he  endeavored  to  crush  it  out  and  to 
substitute  Norman  French  in  its  place,  just  as  the  Czar 
of  Russia  has  recently  attempted  forcibly  to  compel  the 
Finns  to  give  up  their  native  language  and  use  Russian. 
The  investigations  of  historians  1  have  shown,  however, 
that  this  was  not  William's  purpose,  either  with  respect 
to  the  English  language  or  with  respect  to  the  political 
institutions  of  the  English  people.  William  was  too 
wise  a  statesman  not  to  make  use  of  everything  that 
would  help  him,  and  instead  of  being  hostile  to  the 
English  language  and  English  customs,  the  indications 
are  that  he  rather  strove  to  use  them  in  the  effective 
organization  of  his  kingdom.  English  was  never,  there- 
fore, a  forbidden  language,  tho  naturally  it  was  re- 
garded for  a  long  time  as  an  ignoble  language.  The 
speech  of  the  court  and  the  higher  official  life  was 
French,  and  Englishmen  who  sought  favor  at  court  of 
course  learned  French.  There  were  thus  two  strata  in 
the  social  body,  each  with  its  own  language.  English 
continued  to  be  spoken  uninterruptedly  after  the  Con- 

1  See  especially  Freeman,  The  Norman  Conquest ;  and  the  same  author's 
essay,  "  The  English  People  in  their  Three  Homes,"  in  Some  Impressions  of 
the  U*****  States. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  223 

quest,  but  it  tended  to  become  what  we  should  now  call 
the  language  of  the  ignorant  and  uncultivated ;  it  per- 
sisted therefore  as  a  popular  dialect.  French,  on  the 
other  hand,  became  the  accepted  speech  of  the  higher 
political  and  social  life. 

The  number  of  Normans  in  England,  as  compared 
with  the  number  of  Englishmen,  must  always  have  been 
small.  There  were  several  reasons,  however,  why  these 
Normans  were  not  immediately  absorbed  by  the  more 
numerous  English.  In  the  first  place,  a  higher  civiliza- 
tion, tho  confined  to  relatively  few  people,  does  not 
readily  yield  to  lower  influences ;  it  is  conservative  and 
strives  to  be  self -perpetuating.  Second,  French  culture 
in  England  was  continually  refreshed  by  communication 
with  the  Continent.  William  was  king  of  England,  but 
also  duke  of  Normandy,  and  many  of  his  nobles  who 
held  possessions  in  England  also  had  important  relations 
with  France.  There  was  thus  a  continual  passing  back 
and  forth  of  the  official  society  between  England  and 
Normandy.  In  the  meantime,  however,  those  French- 
men whose  possessions  and  interests  were  all  in  England 
would  be  compelled  in  self-defense  to  learn  English. 
Their  workmen  and  their  overseers,  the  people  upon 
whom  all  the  practical  affairs  of  daily  life  depended, 
would  be  English ;  and  as  these  English  would  have 
little  opportunity  to  learn  French,  however  great  their 
inclination,  the  only  thing  for  the  landlords  to  do  was  to 
learn  English.  In  the  year  1204  an  event  happened 
which  made  communication  between  French  and  English 
in  England  more  than  ever  frequent  and  necessary. 
This  was  the  loss  of  the  province  of  Normandy  in  the 
reign  of  King  John,  and  the  consequent  loss  of  their 


224  MODERN  ENGLISH 

French  possessions  by  the  Norman  nobles  in  England. 
From  this  time  on  English  continued  to  gain  as  the 
national  speech  of  the  country.  French  remained  as 
the  cultivated  speech  of  the  higher  social  classes,  but 
it  came  to  be  more  and  more  felt  as  an  accomplishment, 
an  artificial,  aristocratic  class  language,  as  distinguished 
from  the  general,  national  language  of  the  people.  As 
soon  as  this  had  come  to  pass,  French  as  a  spoken 
language  in  England  was  doomed.  It  might  continue  to 
be  used  as  the  language  of  polite  conversation,  to  some 
extent  as  the  language  of  literature  and  scholarship; 
but  the  language  which  does  not  send  its  roots  down 
into  the  actual,  every-day  life  of  a  people  is  condemned 
to  sterility  and  death.  French  managed  to  maintain  it- 
self as  a  cultivated  language  far  into  the  fourteenth 
century.  Robert  of  Gloucester,  writing  about  1300, 
speaks  of  English  as  the  language  of  "  lowe  men,"  but  of 
French  as  the  language  of  "  heie  men,"  by  "  high  men  " 
probably  meaning  men  of  high  official  rank.  The  Cursor 
Mundi,  a  long  poem  written  in  the  north  of  England 
in  the  first  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  century,  defends 
English  on  patriotic  grounds  as  the  right  language  for 
Englishmen  to  use.  Ralph  Higden,  in  a  Latin  historical 
work  called  the  Polychronicon,  written  near  the  middle  of 
the  century,  says  that  children  in  school  were  compelled 
to  leave  their  own  language^  (showing  that  English  was 
the  native  language  of  school  children  in  his  day)  and 
to  construe  their  lessons  in  French,  a  state  of  affairs 
which  Higden  regards  with  disfavor.  Higden  also  says 
that  gentlemen's  children  are  taught  French  from  the 
time  that  they  are  rocked  in  the  cradle.  The  Polychroni- 
con  was  translated  into  English  by  John  Trevisa  about 


ENGLISH   WORDS  225 

the  year  1385,  and  in  his  translation  Trevisa  comments  on 
Higden's  statement,  observing  that  in  his  day  matters 
had  changed  somewhat,  that  children  now  studied  their 
lessons  in  English;  whereby,  says  Trevisa,  they  have 
this  advantage,  that  they  learn  their  lessons  more  quickly, 
but  this  disadvantage,  that  they  know  no  more  French 
than  their  left  heels.  In  the  meantime,  in  the  year  1362, 
it  had  been  ordered  that  pleadings  in  the  law  courts 
should  be  in  English  and  not  in  French.  By  the  end 
of  the  fourteenth  century  it  was  for  once  and  all  de- 
termined that  English  was  to  be  the  language  of  Eng- 
land. This  final  triumph  of  English  is  indicated  most 
forcibly  by  the  choice  of  English  for  literary  purposes  by 
Chaucer.  Familiar  as  he  was  with  French,  Chaucer  could 
have  written  in  that  language  if  he  had  so  desired.  But 
his  observation  had  convinced  him  that  French  was  a 
decaying  and  passing  language  in  England,  that  the 
real,  vital  language  of  the  country  was  English,  and  that 
any  literature  which  should  express  English  character 
and  life  must  be  written  in  the  English  language. 
Chaucer,  therefore,  while  his  example  contributed  to 
raise  English  in  the  respect  of  the  people,  did  not  by  his 
single  effort  make  English  a  language  fit  for  literature. 
It  had  become  so  before  Chaucer  wrote,  and  what  the 
poet  did  was  to  see  his  opportunity  and  use  it.  In  his 
choice  of  English  we  have  the  final  victory  of  English 
over  French,  the  language  of  the  people  against  the 
language  of  the  higher  life,  of  the  court,  of  polite  con- 
\ersation,  and  of  literature. 

16.  Chronology  of  French  Words  in  English. 
When  we  come  to  consider  the  question  of  the  times  at 
which  French  words  were  taken  over  into  English,  we  are 

15 


226  MODERN   ENGLISH 

met  by  an  interesting  condition  of  affairs.  As  we  hav« 
already  seen,  intimate  relations  between  France  and  Eng- 
land began  in  the  time  of  Edward  the  Confessor,  contin- 
uing after  the  Conquest  in  a  much  more  influential  way 
to  the  time  of  the  loss  of  Normandy  in  1204.  Even 
after  the  loss  of  Normandy,  however,  French  continued 
to  be  used  in  England  as  a  cultivated  or  polite  language, 
and  it  was  only  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth  cen- 
tury that  English  began  to  take  the  place  of  French,  a 
tendency  that  became  complete  at  the  end  of  the  cen- 
tury. Now  it  is  remarkable  that  it  is  not  until  we  come 
to  English  works  written  near  the  beginning  of  the  four- 
teenth century  that  we  find  French  words  abundantly 
used.  In  the  Ormulum,  for  example,  a  poem  of  about 
ten  thousand  long  lines,  written  near  the  year  1200,  only 
twenty-three  words  of  French  origin  are  used.1  The 
Brut  of  Layamon,  a  poem  of  more  than  56,000  short 
lines,  written  early  in  the  thirteenth  century,  contains 
only  150  words  of  French  origin.2  The  proportion  varies 
slightly  with  different  writers,  other  works  contemporary 
with  the  Ormulum  and  the  Brut  showing  some  a  larger 
and  others  a  smaller  relative  number  of  French  words. 
But  the  number  for  two  centuries  after  the  Conquest  is 
never  very  large.  Gradually,  however,  the  use  of  French 
words  in  Middle  English  texts  increases  until  it  reaches 
its  highest  point  between  1300  and  1400,  or  more  exactly 
between  1350  and  1400,  just  the  period  in  which  French 
was  losing  ground  as  a  national  language  and  English 
was  gaining  ground.  How  is  this  to  be  explained? 
First  of  all,  by  the  fact  that  when  the  higher  classes,  th<? 

1  A  list  of  them  is  given  by  Kluge,  Englische  Studien,  XXII,  179  fl. 
*  For  a  list  of  them,  see  Moiiroe,  in  Modern  Philology  t  IV,  559  ff. 


ENGLISH  WORDS  227 

speech  of  which  is  naturally  reflected  in  the  literature  of 
the  period,  took  to  speaking  English,  a  language  for 
which  they  had  hitherto  had  more  or  less  contempt,  they 
naturally  carried  over  into  English  many  words  from 
their  French.  Their  English  was  a  sort  of  Gallicized 
English,  improved  and  polished,  as  they  probably 
thought,  by  being  interlarded  with  French  words. 
The  very  tendency,  therefore,  which  brought  about  the 
elevation  of  English  resulted  also  in  the  introduction  of 
numerous  French  words  into  English.  Moreover,  we 
need  not  suppose  that  the  English  themselves  of  the 
middle  and  lower  classes  were  averse  to  borrowing 
French  words  in  this  period.  French  was  recognized  as 
a  polite  language,  the  language  of  culture,  education,  and 
travel,  especially  as  the  language  of  literature,  and  the 
occasional  use  of  a  French  word  conferred  a  touch  of 
distinction  upon  the  person  who  used  it,  just  as  to-day 
we  have  a  sort  of  "  society  French,"  such  words  as  debu- 
tante, fiancee,  foyer,  etc.,  and  a  sort  of  literary  or  esthetic 
French,  words  like  genre,  denouement,  technique,  which 
persons  of  a  somewhat  unripe  culture  are  fond  of  using. 
The  French  which  was  thus  cultivated  at  the  end  of 
the  fourteenth  century  was  no  longer  the  old  Anglo- 
Norman  French  of  the  original  conquerors  of  England. 
That  had  in  the  course  of  time  grown  old-fashioned, 
tho  from  this  Anglo-Norman  French  are  of  course  de- 
rived most  French  words  taken  into  English  before  1350. 
The  new  and  the  fashionable  French  which  was  culti- 
vated in  the  last  half  of  the  century  was  Central  French, 
the  dialect  of  Paris,  the  chief  city  of  the  French,  and  the 
dialect  also  in  which  the  great  body  of  French  literature 
was  written.  We  thus  see  that  the  Conquest  itself  and 


228  MODERN  ENGLISH 

its  immediate  political  results  were  less  influential  in 
bringing  about  the  introduction  of  French  words  into 
English  than  these  later  social  causes.  Indeed  the  in- 
fluence of  French  upon  the  English  vocabulary  did  not 
become  pronounced  until  the  Conquest  had  become 
practically  forgotten  and  the  racial  distinction  between 
Norman  and  English  obliterated.  The  real  explanation 
of  the  influence  of  French  upon  English  is  to  be  found 
where  the  influence  of  one  language  upon  another  is 
almost  always  to  be  found,  in  the  give  and  take  of  the 
members  of  one  social  group  upon  another  in  the  daily 
concerns  of  life. 

17.  Kinds  of  Words  Borrowed  from  French. 
In  general,  words  of  all  kinds,  of  all  parts  of  speech,  and 
from  all  walks  of  life  were  taken  over  into  English, 
both  from  Anglo-Norman  and  from  Central  French, 
during  the  Middle  English  period.  As  a  result  of  this 
borrowing,  many  English  words  were  lost,  French  words 
like  mercy i  charity,  power,  soldier,  peace,  etc.,  taking  the 
place  of  words  which  in  the  Old  English  period  were 
drawn  from  the  Teutonic  stock.  Or  it  often  happened 
that  an  Old  English  word  was  preserved  beside  a  French 
word  of  similar  content,  the  Old  English  word,  however, 
generally  taking  on  a  somewhat  less  dignified  meaning 
than  the  French  wor^  as,  for  example,  French  chair 
beside  English  stool ;  French  city  beside  English  town  ; 
French  labor  beside  English  work.  Sir  Walter  Scott,  in 
Ivanhoe,  has  called  attention  to  pairs  of  words  of  this 
sort,  such  as  French  beef,  mutton,  veal,  and  pork,  as  com- 
pared with  English  ox,  sheep,  calf,  and  swine.  He  draws 
the  inference  that  the  ox  and  the  other  animals,  so  long 
as  they  were  only  objects  of  care  and  expense,  were  the 


ENGLISH  WORDS  229 

concern  of  the  humble  Saxons,  but  when  they  were 
dressed  for  the  table  and  were  ready  to  be  enjoyed,  then 
they  passed  into  the  possession  of  the  Normans  and  took 
the  French  names,  such  as  beef,  etc.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  Saxons  were  so  poverty- 
stricken  and  oppressed  as  not  to  be  able  to  eat  beef, 
mutton,  or  pork.  The  French  names  for  the  dressed 
meats  were  taken  over  because  they  were  the  polite 
names,  and  the  Saxon  when  he  had  prepared  his  ox  or 
his  sheep  for  the  table  would  himself  be  pleased  to  call 
it  beef  and  mutton. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  go  through  the  whole  list  of 
borrowed  words  and  classify  them  exactly,  so  as  to  show 
just  what  ideas  the  language  tended  to  express  in  French 
to  the  exclusion  of  English.  As  has  already  been  stated, 
words  of  all  kinds,  the  most  simple  as  well  as  the  most 
polite,  were  taken  over,  many  of  them  maintaining  only 
a  temporary  place  in  the  language,  but  most  of  them 
persisting  to  the  present  day.  These  words  we  no 
longer  feel  as  French  in  origin,  and  we  use  them  in  the 
same  way  as  we  use  all  other  words  of  the  language. 
They  have  become  indeed  an  essential  and  inseparable 
part  of  the  language,  and  any  attempt  to  distinguish  and 
to  discriminate  against  words  of  French  origin  of  this 
period  is  artificial  and  vain.  As  illustrations  of  short 
and  simple  words  of  French  origin  borrowed  in  the 
Middle  English  period,  we  may  cite  the  following :  able, 
age,  air,  boil,  card,  chair,  course,  cry,  debt,  doubt,  ease, 
engine,  face,  flower 5  fruit,  hasty,  hour,  hulk,  jolly,  move, 
pass,  oust,  peck,  river,  soil,  table,  use,  etc.  These  simple 
words,  the  number  of  which  could  be  increased  indefi- 
nitely, are  exactly  on  the  same  plane  as  the  popular  words 


230  MODERN  ENGLISH 

of  Scandinavian  origin  cited  above,  and  native  words 
of  Teutonic  origin.  They  are  completely  amalgamated 
with  the  rest  of  the  language,  and  have  become  thus  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  identical  with  the  popular  native 
element.  It  is,  therefore,  not  this  part  of  the  borrowed 
French  strand  in  the  English  vocabulary  that  is  most 
characteristic,  so  far  at  least  as  the  style  of  English  is 
concerned,  of  the  influence  of  French  upon  English. 

Besides  these  simple,  commonplace  words  there  is 
another  large  group  of  words  of  French  origin  which  is 
specially  significant  of  the  relations  which  existed  be- 
tween French  and  English  in  this  period,  a  group  of 
words  which  clearly  reflects  the  attitude  of  mind  of  the 
English  of  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  both 
towards  their  own  and  towards  the  French  language. 
This  difference  is  well  illustrated  by  the  lines  in 
Chaucer's  Prolog  to  The  Canterbury  Tales,  in  which  he 
describes  the  virtues  practised  by  the  knight : 

he  lovede  chivalrye, 
Trouthe  and  honour,  fredom  and  curteisye.1 

Of  these  five  nouns,  the  second  and  the  fourth  are  Eng- 
lish words,  the  first,  the  third,  and  the  fifth  are  French. 
The  English  words,  truth  and  freedom,  are  the  names  of 
two  simple  manly  virtues,  fundamental  virtues  in  Eng- 
lish character.  The  French  words,  chivalry,  honor,  and 
courtesy,  name  virtues  of  a  different  kind,  courtly  vir- 
tues, such  as  only  those  who  are  bred  under  certain  con- 
ditions can  know  and  practice.  Honor  and  courtesy  are 
determined  by  a  code  of  conduct,  a  code  which  has  been 
made  elastic  enough  to  permit  a  gambling  debt  being 

l  Ll.  45,  46. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  231 

called  a  "  debt  of  honor."  But  truth  and  freedom  are 
words  which  need  no  definition,  because  they  have  no 
doubtful  meaning ;  they  are  not  names  for  varying  rules 
of  conduct,  but  are  names  for  permanent  essential  traits 
of  character.  It  would  be  easy  of  course  to  make  too 
much  of  this  distinction,  especially  if  we  should  attempt 
to  show  that  French  words,  as  is  sometimes  supposed, 
were  generally  borrowed  to  designate  the  shallower  and 
more  artificial  ideas  and  sentiments.  A  truer  statement 
would  be  that  the  French  element  often  has  the  qualities 
of  courtliness  and  grace,  these  words  themselves,  courtli- 
ness and  grace,  being  French  words,  and  the  ideas  for 
which  they  stand  being  largely  French  ideas.  To  the 
French  the  Middle  English  period  was  indebted  for  those 
standards  of  conduct  which  we  usually  group  under  the 
broad  head  of  chivalry.  Anglo-Saxon  society  may  have 
been  simple,  earnest,  and  sincere,  but  it  can  hardly  be 
said  to  have  been  light  or  graceful.  The  characteristics 
of  charm  and  fancy,  of  polish  and  lightness,  do  not  ap- 
pear prominently  in  English  literature,  and  probably  did 
not  exist  in  any  considerable  extent  in  English  life,  until 
after  the  period  of  French  influence.  It  is  the  polite 
part  of  the  English  vocabulary,  taken  over  from  French 
at  this  time,  that  constitutes  the  striking  difference 
between  the  language  of  the  Middle  English  and  the 
Old  English  period.  This  is  illustrated  by  borrowed 
words  which  have  to  do  with  eating  and  table-manners, 
as,  for  example,  the  words  dine,  dinner,  supper,  table 
(for  Old  English  board),  plate,  napkin,  fork,  pasty,  feast, 
besides  many  names  of  edibles,  of  kitchen  utensils,  and 
of  ways  of  preparing  food,  such  as  roast,  broil,  boil,  and 
others.  Costume  and  dress  also  changed  and  became 


232  MODERN  ENGLISH 

much  more  elaborate  in  the  Middle  English  period, 
French  words  here  again  often  taking  the  place  of  Eng- 
lish ones.  Examples  are  coat,  cloak,  gown,  boot,  cap, 
etc.,  also  many  names  of  cloths.  Words  of  address 
were  taken  from  the  French,  such  as  sir,  madam,  master, 
mistress,  as  well  as  many  from  the  higher  titles,  like 
prince,  duke,  duchess,  marquis,  baron,  captain,  sergeant, 
colonel,  officer,  etc.  Names  of  relationship,  except  the 
immediate  relationships  of  the  family,  were  expressed  by 
French  words,  as  uncle,  aunt,  nephew,  niece,  and  cousin ; 
but  father,  brother,  mother,  sister  remained  English.  Ac- 
complishments were  usually  French,  both  in  word  and 
fact.  Four  of  the  six  talents  mentioned  by  Chaucer  in 
the  following  couplet  descriptive  of  the  gallant  Squire 
in  The  Canterbury  Tales,  require  French  words  to  name 
them: 

He  koude  songes  make  and  wel  endite, 

Juste  and  eek  daunce  and  weel  purtreye  and  write.1 

Many  of  the  terms  of  sport,  especially  hawking  and  hunt- 
ing, were  taken  from  the  French,  and  naturally  also  a 
great  many  words  connected  with  the  higher  official  life, 
as,  for  example,  crown,  state,  realm,  royal,  country,  nation, 
power,  etc. ;  words  xfonnected  with  war  and  military 
affairs  in  general,  as  arms,  peace,  battle,  armor,  banner, 
siege,  and  a  great  many  others ;  words  pertaining  to  the 
law  courts  and  the  administration  of  justice,  as,  for  ex- 
ample, judge,  justice,  court,  suit,  plea,  plead,  etc. ;  numer- 
ous words  of  ecclesiastical  meaning,  as  service,  savior, 
relic,  cloister,  preach,  prayer,  clergy,  clerk,  etc.  But 
most  important  of  all,  perhaps,  is  the  long  list  of  words 

i  Prolog,  11.  95,  96.     Endite  =  compose ;  juste  =  joust ;  eek  =  also. 


ENGLISH  WORDS  235 

of  more  or  less  abstract  value  denoting  chivalric  ideas  or 
matters  of  general  conduct.  The  words  honor  and  cour- 
tesy have  already  been  cited  from  Chaucer.  To  them 
should  be  added  the  word  villainy,  in  Chaucer's  well- 
known  line  descriptive  of  the  Knight  in  the  Prolog  to 
The  Canterbury  Tales : 

He  nevere  yet  no  vileynye  ne  sayde. 

The  word  means  in  Chaucer  not  quite  what  it  does  in 
Modern  English,  in  the  earlier  sense  signifying  any  con- 
duct not  befitting  a  gentleman.  Other  words  of  this 
kind  are  duty,  fame,  virtue,  gentle,  valor,  chivalry,  cour- 
age, liege,  degree,  rank,  standard,  nolle,  grace,  favor, 
simple,  pleasant,  agreeable,  amiable,  manner,  dignity,  rev- 
erence, piteous,  dainty,  dalliaunce,  familiar,  vaunt,  adven- 
ture, coward,  charm,  chastity,  beauty,  benign,  oblige,  fault, 
majesty. 

It  is  a  significant  fact  that  it  would  be  extremely  diffi- 
cult to  find  an  Old  English  equivalent  to  many  of  these 
words,  the  reason  being  that  the  exact  shade  of  thought 
or  feeling  expressed  by  the  French  words  was  not  a  part 
of  Anglo-Saxon  experience.  The  life  of  the  English 
people  in  the  fourteenth  century  was  much  richer  and 
more  varied  than  it  had  been  in  the  ninth  or  tenth  centu- 
ries, and  this  growth  in  richness  and  variety,  largely  due 
as  it  was  to  their  contact  with  French  life  and  civiliza- 
tion, is  also  largely  expressed  in  words  of  French  origin. 

18.  Renascence  Borrowings  in  English.  The  bor- 
rowing of  French  words,  which  has  been  described  in  the 
foregoing  paragraphs,  continued  with  but  little  diminu- 
tion down  through  the  fifteenth  century.  Towards  the 
of  this  century  the  tendency  to  import  words  of  both 


234  MODERN   ENGLISH 

French  and  Latin  origin  was  greatly  strengthened  by  the 
general  drift  of  the  Renascence  movement,  that  revival  of 
learning  and  of  interest  in  literature,  both  classical  Latin 
and  Greek  and  English  vernacular,  which,  in  its  results 
upon  language,  was  hardly  less  important  than  the  period 
of  French  influence  of  which  we  have  just  spoken.  The 
effect  of  the  Renascence  upon  English  is  interesting  and 
remarkable  also  because  it  was  almost  altogether  the 
result  of  conscious  effort.  In  preceding  periods,  any 
changes  which  affected  the  language  took  place  largely 
without  the  conscious  knowledge  of  the  people  who 
spoke  the  language.  Words  were  borrowed  from  Scan- 
dinavian or  French  because  it  was  convenient  to  have 
the  Scandinavian  or  French  words.  But  there  was  no 
avowed  theory  that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  to  add  to 
the  English  vocabulary  by  borrowing  from  these  lan- 
guages, words  being  taken  as  the  need  for  them  arose  in 
r  the  social  intercourse  of  daily  life.  In  the  Renascence 
I  period,  however,  there  arose  a  perfectly  conscious  move- 
ment, on  the  part  of  scholars  and  authors,  to  extend  the 
limits  of  the  English  vocabulary  by  direct  borrowing 
from  other  languages.  This  was  quite  in  keeping  with 
the  general  spirit  o£  the  Renascence,  one  of  its  most 
characteristic  aspects  being  a  deep  and  general  interest  in 
questions  of  language.  From  their  study  of  the  classical 
authors,  the  Renascence  scholars  were  naturally  led  to 
the  consideration  of  the  matter  of  style  in  literature,  the 
ability  of  a  language  to  express  all  the  various  shades  of 
thought  and  feeling  of  the  human  mind  and  heart.  The 
perfect  models  of  style  they  thought  were  to  be  found  in 
such  writers  as  Cicero  and  Vergil,  and  tho  a  modern 
vernacular  such  as  English  could  never  hope  to  rival  the 


ENGLISH   WORDS  235 

classical  languages,  these  latter  were  nevertheless  the 
ideals  towards  which  the  modern  languages  were  to  strive. 
A  modern  language  could  not  be  as  good  as  Latin,  but  it 
ought  to  strive  to  be  as  like  as  possible  to  Latin.  There 
arose  thus  the  idea  of  "improving"  the  language,  of 
"  augmenting "  it,  of  making  it  richer  and  fuller,  and 
more  capable  of  expressing  what  the  Latin  language 
could  express  so  well.  The  desire  to  translate  the 
monuments  of  classical  literature  into  English  also  en- 
couraged the  belief  that  English  should  be  improved, 
for  obviously  there  could  be  no  adequate  translation 
into  English  until  that  language  should  be  at  least 
approximately  as  expressive  as  the  language  from  which 
translation  was  to  be  made.  The  great  endeavor,  there- 
fore, of  the  Renascence  reformers  was  to  enrich  the  vo- 
cabulary and  to  make  the  language  more  expressive. 
Their  ideal  was  one  of  art,  and  they  cultivated  language 
mainly  as  a  medium  of  artistic,  literary  expression. 

As  is  true  of  all  reform  movements,  the  positive  OP 
radical  party  is  sure  to  beget  a  reactionary  or  conserv- 
ative party ;  and  so  in  this  movement  also  the  enrichers 
or  improvers  had  to  contend  with  the  opposition  of  the 
conservatives,  who  maintained  that  English  should  not 
borrow  words  from  other  languages,  but  should  try  to 
develop  her  own  native  resources.  The  conservatives 
contended  that  if  English  needed  new  words  they  should 
be  taken  from  the  earlier  periods  of  her  own  language, 
rather  than  from  foreign  languages.  Both  of  these  bodies 
of  theorists  in  the  end  helped  towards  the  enrichment 
of  the  language,  the  one  by  external  borrowing  and 
imitation,  the  other  by  internal  development. 

The  Renascence  in  England  is  characterized  by  two 


236  MODERN  ENGLISH 

events,  both  of  them  of  the  greatest  importance  in 
the  history  of  the  language.  The  first  of  these  is  the 
revival  of  learning,  meaning  thereby  the  study  of  Greek 
and  Latin  literature;  the  second  is  the  introduction  of 
printing.  There  was  very  little  knowledge  of  Greek 
in  England  during  the  Old  and  the  Middle  Eng- 
lish periods.  The  first  Englishman  to  acquire  profi- 
ciency in  Greek  in  the  Renascence  period  was  William 
Tilly  of  Selling,  near  Canterbury,  a  Benedictine  monk, 
who  died  in  149-4.  Others  who  succeeded  him  were  his 
nephew,  Thomas  Linacre  (1460-1524),  William  Grocyn 
(1446-1519),  and  William  Latimer  (d.  1545).  Sir 
Thomas  More  (1480-1535)  was  also  a  student  of  Greek, 
and  the  great  Dutch  scholar,  Erasmus,  lived  for  several 
years  in  England,  and  gave  instruction  in  Greek  at  the 
University  of  Cambridge.  To  these  names  may  also  be 
added  that  of  William  Lily,  first  High-Master  of  St. 
Paul's  School  in  London,  and  author  of  the  Latin  gram- 
mar which  Shakspere,  as  well  as  most  of  his  contempo- 
raries, used  as  a  school-boy.  The  direct  influence  of 
Greek  upon  English  in  the  Renascence  period  was, 
however,  very  slight  as  compared  with  the  influence  of 
Latin  and  French,  ^ahe  study  and  the  knowledge  of 
Greek  were  more  important  as  expressive  of  a  deep  and 
enthusiastic  interest  in  language  merely  as  language, 
rather  than  as  affecting  directly  the  feeling  for,  and  the 
use  of,  the  English  language. 

The  introduction  of  printing  into  England  was  due 
to  William  Caxton,  an  Englishman  born  in  Kent  about 
1415.  He  lived  on  the  Continent  a  number  of  years, 
and  during  his  residence  in  the  Low  Countries  learned 
the  printer's  trade.  On  his  return  to  England  he  set  up 


ENGLISH   WORDS  237 

a  press  of  his  own,  and  on  November  18,  1477,  the  first 
dated  book  printed  in  England  issued  from  his  press. 
His  work  was  very  favorably  received  by  the  nobility 
in  England,  and  thereafter  Caxton's  press  was  kept  busy. 
To  find  material  for  publication,  he  himself  became  a 
translator.  His  first  translation  was  a  summary  of  the 
stories  centering  about  the  Trojan  war,  called  Recuyell 
of  the  History es  of  Troy;  other  translations  which  he 
made  were  of  Reynard  the  Fox ;  Jacobus  a  Voragine's 
Golden  Legend ;  a  modernization  of  Trevisa's  English 
version  of  Higden's  Polychronicon ;  a  form  of  the  story 
of  the  dEneid  called  Eneydos ;  and  many  others. 

As  author  and  translator  Caxton  was  deeply  impressed 
by  the  beauty  and  expressiveness  of  the  Latin  and  the 
French  languages,  and  was  desirous  of  making  English 
the  equal  of  these  languages.  To  attain  this  end  he 
treated  English  with  a  freedom  not  always  approved  by 
his  readers,  who  were  sometimes  puzzled  by  the  strange 
words  with  which  he  confronted  them.  Thus  in  the 
preface  to  his  Eneydos,  which  was  published  in  1490,  he 
says  he  was  attracted  to  the  French  book  "  by  cause  of 
the  fayr  and  honest  termes  and  wordes  in  frenshe  "  ;  and 
having  decided  to  translate  it  into  English,  he  "wrote 
a  leef  or  tweyne "  as  sample.  Then  he  adds :  "  and 
whan  I  sawe  the  fayr  and  straunge  termes  therin/  I 
doubted  that  it  sholde  not  please  some  gentylmen  whiche 
late  blamed  me,  sayeng  that  in  my  translacyons  I  had 
ouer  curyous  termes  whiche  coude  not  be  understande 
of  comyn  peple/  and  desired  me  to  vse  olde  and  homely 
termes  in  my  translacyons.  And  fayn  wolde  I  satysfye 
euery  man/  and  so  to  doo,  toke  an  olde  boke  and  redde 
therein/  and  certaynly  the  englysshe  was  so  rude  and 


238  MODERN   ENGLISH 

brood  that  I  coude  not  wele  vnderstande  it.  And  also 
my  lorde  abbot  of  westmynster  ded  do  shewe  to  me  late 
certayn  euidences  wry  ton  in  olde  englysslie,  for  to  reduce 
it  into  our  englysshe  now  vsid/  and  certaynly  it  was 
wreton  in  such  wyse  that  it  was  more  lyke  to  dutche 
than  englysshe ;  I  coude  not  reduce  ne  brynge  it  to  be 
vnderatonden/  And  certaynly  our  langage  now  vsed 
varye*h  ferre  from  that  whiche  was  vsed  and  spoken 
whan  I  was  borne/  For  we  englysshe  men/  ben  borne 
vnder  the  domynacyon  of  the  mone,  whiche  is  neuer 
stedfaste/  but  euer  wauerynge/  wexynge  one  season/  and 
waneth  &  dyscreaseth  another  season." 1 

Caxton  then  adds  that  his  book  is  not  translated  "  for 
a  rude  uplondyssh  man  to  laboure  therin,"  but  for  the 
clerk  and  gentleman,  and  if  these  do  not  understand  his 
words,  let  them  go  read  Vergil  and  the  other  Latin 
writers,  and  then  they  shall  lightly  understand  all.  It 
is  plain  from  what  he  says  here  that  Caxton's  sympa- 
thies were  with  the  enrichers  rather  than  with  the  con- 
servatives. 

As  a  further  illustration  of  Caxton's  method  of 
Latinizing  and  Gallicizing  English,  we  may  quote  the 
following  extract  from  the  Eneydos  : 

"For  to  here/  opene/  and  declare  the  matere  of  whiche 
hereafter  shall  be  made  mencyon/  It  behoueth  to  pre- 
suppose that  Troye,  the  grete  capytall  cyte/  and  thex- 
cellentest  of  alle  the  cytees  of  the  countre  &  regyon  of 
Asye,  was  constructe  and  edefyed  by  the  ryght  puys- 
saunt  &  renomed  kyng  Pryamus,  sone  of  laomedon, 

1  Comyn  =  common  ;  brood  —  broad ;  ferre  =  far.  The  cross-bar,  used 
in  the  above  passage,  is  found  in  manuscripts  and  early  printed  books  as 
a  kind  of  punctuation,  standing  either  for  a  period  or  a  comma.  It  is  not, 
however,  very  consistently  employed. 


ENGLISH  WORDS  239 

descended  of  thauncyen  stocke  of  Dardanus  by  many 
degrees/  whiche  was  sone  of  Jubyter  &  of  Electra  his 
wyf ,  after  the  fyctions  poetyque/  And  the  fyrste  orygy- 
nall  begynnynge  of  the  genealogye  of  kynges.  And  the 
sayd  Troye  was  enuyronned  in  fourme  of  siege/  and  of 
excidyon  by  Agamenon,  kynge  in  grece,  brother  of  mene- 
laus/  whiche  was  husbonde  to  helayne.  The  whiche 
agamenon,  assembled  and  accompanyed  wyth  many 
kynges,  dukes/  erles/  and  grete  quantyte  of  other  princes 
&  grekes  innumerable,  hadde  the  magystracyon  and 
vnyuersall  gouernaunce  of  alle  thexcersite  and  hoost 
to-fore  Troye."  l 

The  words  in  this  passage  which  would  likely  have 
seemed  strange  to  an  unlearned  Englishman  of  Caxton's 
day  are  the  following:  declare;  matere  =  matter; 
mencyon  —  mention ;  presuppose ;  capytall ;  thexcellen- 
test  =  the  excellentest ;  regyoun  =  region ;  constructe 
(from  Latin  constructum)  ;  edefyed  =  edified  (from 
Latin  aedifico,  I  build)  ;  puyssaunt ;  renomed  =  re- 
nowned ;  descended  ;  thauncyen  =  the  ancient ;  de- 
grees ;  fyctions  ;  poetyque  ;  orygynall ;  genealogye  ; 
enuyronned  ;  fourme  =  form  ;  excidyon  (from  excidium 
=  siege)  ;  assembled ;  accompanyed ;  quantyte ;  in- 
numerable ;  magistracy  on  =  magistracy  ;  vnyuersall ; 
gouernaunce  ;  thexcersite  =  the  excersite  (from  Latin 
exercitus,  army).  Of  these  it  is  interesting  to  observe 
that  only  two,  excidyon  and  excersite,  are  altogether  un- 
known to  the  Modern  English  reader,  and  that  most  of 
the  rest  are  perfectly  familiar  to  any  adult  person  of 
average  education.  One  or  two  are  used  in  somewhat 
unusual  senses,  as,  for  example,  edefyed  in  the  sense  of 

1  Eneydos,  pp.  10-11. 


240  MODERN  ENGLISH 

"  built "  (but  cf.  Modern  English  "  edifice  ")  ;  but  the 
meanings  seem  strange  because  our  Modern  English 
words  have  ceased  to  be  used  with  the  strict  etymologi- 
cal value  that  Caxton  gives  them.  It  is  interesting  to 
observe  also  that  Caxton  endeavors  often  to  explain 
and  define  his  new  and  strange  words  by  coupling  them 
with  words  of  similar  meaning  and  familiar  form,  as, 
for  example,  opene  and  declare  ;  countre  $  regyon  ;  first 
orygynall  legynnynge ;  of  siege  and  of  excidyon ;  excer- 
site  and  hoost.  But  sometimes  also  he  puts  two  new 
words  together,  trusting  perhaps  that  they  will  ex- 
plain each  other,  as  constructe  l  and  edefyed;  puyssaunt 
$•  renamed;  assembled  and  accompanied. 

Caxton  gives  great  credit  to  Chaucer  as  a  pioneer  in 
this  attempt  to  enrich  the  English  language  which  he 
carries  on.  In  the  Proem,  or  Preface,  to  his  edition  of 
The  Canterbury  Tales  he  praises  Chaucer  in  the  follow- 
ing terms,  which  indeed  carry  the  methods  of  the  enrich- 
ers  to  the  limits  of  absurdity : 

"  For  to-fore  that^he  [i.  e.,  Chaucer]  by  labour  embel- 
lished, ornated  and  made  fair  our  English,  in  this  realm 
was  had  rude  speech  and  incongruous,  as  yet  it  appeareth 
by  old  books,  which  at  this  day  ought  not  to  have  place 
ne  be  compared  among,  ne  to,  his  beauteous  volumes  and 

1  The  form  constructe  is  a  past  participle  formed  from  the  Latin  past 
participle  constructum,  the  present  form  of  which  is  construo,  "  I  build  or 
construct."  It  could  be  appreciated  as  a  past  participle  only  by  those  who 
were  aware  of  this  etymology ;  for  the  normal  English  feeling  for  a  past 
participle  demanded  a  participial  -ed  ending  ;  and  so  as  the  word  came  to 
be  accepted  into  general  use,  it  took  the  past  participial  form  constructed. 
In  legal  phraseology,  however,  the  form  situate  (without  the  -ed)  is  still 
used  as  a  past  participle,  being  of  the  same  formation  as  Caxton's  con- 
structe.  The  present  form  of  Latin  constrno  appears  in  English  construet 
the  past  participle  of  which  is  no  longer  felt  to  be  construct  but  construed. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  241 

ornate  writings,  of  whom  he  made  many  books  and  treat- 
ises of  many  a  noble  history,  as  well  in  metre  as  in 
rhyme  and  prose ;  and  them  so  craftily  made  that  he 
comprehended  his  matters  in  short,  quick,  and  high  sen- 
tences, eschewing  prolixity,  casting  away  the  chaff  of 
superfluity,  and  shewing  the  picked  grain  of  sentence 
uttered  by  crafty  and  sugared  eloquence." l 

Caxton,  however,  is  unfair  to  Chaucer  in  counting  him 
among  the  conscious  enrichers  of  the  language.  Chaucer, 
to  be  sure,  used  a  great  many  words  which  were  not  in 
the  English  vocabulary  before  the  period  of  French  in- 
fluence. But  the  words  which  Chaucer  used  were  al- 
most all  of  them  words  which  had  acquired  citizenship 
in  the  English  language  of  his  time.  He  used  them 
because  in  the  centuries  which  had  followed  the  Con- 
quest they  had  come  to  be  standard  English  words. 

Another  scholar  and  author  of  this  period  who  was 
extremely  zealous  in  his  efforts  to  enrich  the  language 
was  Sir  Thomas  Elyot  (1490  ?-1546).  Among  Elyot's 
numerous  books  written  in  English,  the  most  interesting 
and  important  is  The  Boke  named  the  Gouernour,  pub- 
lished in  1531,  a  book  on  general  political  philosophy 
and  the  theory  of  education.  Convinced  of  the  poverty 
of  the  Old  English,  or  native,  vocabulary  as  compared 
with  the  Latin,  Greek,  and  French,  Elyot  set  about  the 
task  of  augmenting'  or  enriching  his  English  vocabu- 
lary. Naturally,  his  strange  words  met  with  the  same 
opposition  that  Caxton's  had  found.  "  Diuers  men,"  he 
says,  "rather  scornyng  my  benefite  than  receyuing  it 
thankfully,  doo  shewe  them  selfes  offended  (as  they  say) 
with  my  strange  termes."  He  was  gratified,  however, 

1  See  Pollard,  Fifteenth  Century  Prose  and  Verse,  p.  235L 


242  MODERN   ENGLISH 

that  his  work  should  meet  with  the  approval  of  the 
king,  Henry  VIII,  and  he  expresses  the  purpose  of  his 
reforms  as  follows :  "  His  Highnesse  benignely  recey- 
uynge  my  boke,  whiche  I  named  The  Grouernour,  in  the 
redynge  therof  sone  perceyued  that  I  intended  to  aug- 
ment our  Englyshe  tongue  whereby  men  shulde  as  well 
expresse  more  abundantly  the  thynge  that  they  con- 
ceyued  in  theyr  hartis  (wherefore  language  was  or- 
deyned),  hauynge  wordes  apte  for  the  pourpose,  as  also 
interprete  out  of  greke,  latyn  or  any  other  tonge  into 
Englysshe,  as  sufficiently  as  out  of  any  one  of  the  said 
tongues  into  an  other.  His  Grace  also  perceyued  that 
throughout  the  boke  there  was  no  terme  new  made  by 
me  of  a  latin  or  frenche  worde,  but  it  is  there  declared 
so  playnly  by  one  mene  or  other  to  a  diligent  reder,  that 
no  sentence  is  thereby  made  derke  or  harde  to  be  under- 
stande."  l 

Among  the  examples  of  what  were  regarded  as 
"  strange  termes^l  in  his  day,  but  which  have  now  be- 
come generally  accepted  as  commonplace  words  in  the 
language,  Elyot  mentions  industry,  magnanimity,  matur- 
ity^ sobriety,  and  temperance.  Thomas  Nashe,  a  few 
years  later,  finds  much  to  criticize  in  the  vocabulary  of 
his  literary  enemy,  Gabriel  Harvey.  Among  the  words 
and  phrases  used  by  Harvey  which  sound  strange  to-day 
may  be  cited  the  following:  canicular  tales;  effectuate;  ad- 
doulce  his  melodie  ;  polimechany.  But  by  far  the  greater 
number  of  those  words  mentioned  by  Nashe  are  good, 
if  somewhat  learned  English  to-day;  a  few  may  be 
given  in  modern  spelling :  ingenuity  ;  putative  opinions  ; 
artificiality ;  cordial  liquor  ;  perfunctory  discourses ;  th* 

1  Crofts,  The  Boke  named  the  Gouernour,  p. 


ENGLISH   WORDS 

gracious  law  of  amnesty;  amicable  end;  extensively 
employed ;  notoriety ;  negotiation  ;  mechanician.  Like 
Caxton,  Nashe  is  of  the  opinion  that  Chaucer  was  a 
great  innovator  in  the  use  of  words,  but  declares  that  if 
Chaucer  had  lived  to  his  time,  he  would  have  discarded 
the  harsher  sort  of  his  strange  words.  They  were,  he 
says,  the  ooze  "  which  ouerflowing  barbarisme,  with- 
drawne  to  her  Scottish  Northren  chanell,  had  left  behind 
her.  Art,  like  yong  grasse  in  the  spring  of  Chaucers 
fiorishing,  was  glad  to  peepe  vp  through  any  slime  of 
corruption,  to  be  beholding  to  she  car'd  not  whome  for 
apparaile,  trauailing  in  those  colde  countries."1  Yet 
Nashe  himself  is  very  fond  of  a  learned  word,  and  in  read- 
ing any  of  his  or  his  contemporary's  works,  one  is  sur- 
prised to  find  how  many  of  their  Latin  words  have  made 
their  way  into  accepted  use.  There  are,  to  be  sure,  many 
words  which  were  probably  never  again  used  after  the 
immediate  occasion  which  called  them  into  being.  As 
we  might  expect,  when  a  scholarly  author  sets  to  work 
with  the  avowed  intent  of  enriching  the  language,  he  is 
sure  to  be  led  into  numerous  extravagances.  And  the 
extremists  among  the  Latinists,  or  enrichers,  were  un- 
doubtedly fair  game  for  such  satire  as  that  of  Thomas 
Wilson,  in  his  Three  Orations  of  Demosthenes,  1570, 
where  he  gives  the  following  high-sounding  letter,  pur- 
porting to  have  come  to  him  from  an  old  schoolfellow : 
"  Pondering,  expending,  and  revoluting  with  myself 
your  ingent  affability  and  ingenious  capacity  for  mun- 
dane affairs,  I  cannot  but  celebrate  and  extol  your  mag- 
nificent dexterity  above  all  other.  ...  I  doubt  not  but 

i   Works,  ed.  McKerrow,  I,  317.    The  work  in  which  this  passage  ap- 
peared was  first  printed  in  1592. 


244  MODERN  ENGLISH 

you  will  adjuvate  such  poor  adnichilate  orphans  as 
whilom  condisciples  with  you  and  of  antique  familiarity 
in  Lincolnshire." l 

Another  satire  on  extravagance  in  the  use  of  big 
words  is  to  be  found  in  the  character  of  Rombus,  the 
schoolmaster,  in  Sir  Philip  Sidney's  mask  The  Lady  of 
May.  Rombus  addresses  his  ignorant  companions  in 
language  like  the  following:  "Why,  you  brute  nebu- 
lons,  have  you  had  my  corpusculum  so  long  among  you, 
and  cannot  yet  tell  how  to  edify  an  argument  ?  Attend 
arid  throw  your  ears  to  me  ...  till  I  have  endoctrinated 
your  plumbeous  cerebrosities  ! "  2  With  the  character 
of  Rombus  should  also  be  compared  the  three  artifi- 
cial characters  in  Shakspere's  Love's  Labour  's  Lost,  the 
Spanish  Knight,  Don  Armado,  with  "  a  mint  of  phrases 
in  his  brain,"  Sir  Nathaniel,  the  curate,  and  the  pedantic 
schoolmaster,  Holofernes. 

The  extravagances  of  these  satirical  characters  ex- 
pressing (as  tEey  undoubtedly  do)  to  a  certain  extent 
the  methods  of  the  augmenters  of  English,  it  will  be 
readily  seen  that  the  conservatives  and  opponents  of  the 
introduction  of  new  words  had  an  important  and  neces- 
sary duty  to  perform.  If  the  Latinists  had  been  allowed 
full  sway,  they  would  practically  have  turned  English 
into  a  sort  of  mongrel  Latin  dialect.  The  conservatives, 
or  the  Saxonists  as  we  may  call  them  to  distinguish 
them  from  the  Latinists,  therefore  had  considerable  jus- 
tice on  their  side,  and  indeed  defended  their  cause  with 
ability.  Yet  it  is  interesting  to  see  that  even  the  most 
conservative  of  the  Saxonists  are  driven  unconsciously  to 

1  Quoted  in  Raleigh's  Introduction  to  Hoby's  Courtier,  p.  xliii. 
a  Miscellaneous  Works  of  Sidney,  ed.  Gray,  p.  274. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  245 

use  many  words  of  recent  introduction  from  Latin.  The 
language  needed  these  words  to  express  the  ideas  which 
both  Saxonists  and  Latinists  wanted  to  express;  it 
needed  them  to  become  the  cosmopolitan  and  universal 
language  which  even  the  Saxonists  would  have  it  to  be  ; 
and  so,  tho  they  were  conservatives,  they  could  not 
be  altogether  reactionaiy  and  unprogressive.  The  head 
of  this  conservative  faction  may  be  regarded  as  Sir  John 
Cheke,  first  Regius  Professor  of  Greek  in  Cambridge 
University  (1540),  who  lays  down  the  principles  of  his 
school  in  a  letter  to  his  "  loving  frind  Mayster  Thomas 
Hoby,"  which  Hoby  prefixes  to  his  translation  of  Castig- 
lione's  Courtier.  His  statement  is  as  follows :  "  I  am  of 
this  opinion  that  our  tung  should  be  written  cleane  and 
pure,  unmixt  and  unmangeled  with  borowing  of  other 
tunges,  wherein  we  take  not  heed  by  tijm,  ever  borrow- 
ing and  never  payeng,  she  shall  be  fain  to  keep  her 
house  as  bankrupt.  For  then  doth  our  tung  naturallie 
and  praisablie  utter  her  meaning,  when  she  bouroweth 
no  counterfeitness  of  other  tunges  to  attire  her  self 
withall,  but  useth  plainlie  her  own,  with  such  shift  as 
nature,  craft,  experiens  and  following  excellent  doth 
lead  her  unto,  and  if  she  want  at  ani  tijm  (as  being 
unperfight  she  must),  yet  let  her  borow  with  such  bash- 
fulness  that  it  mai  appeer,  that  if  either  the  mould  of 
our  own  tung  could  serve  us  to  fascion  a  woord  of  our 
own,  or  if  the  old  denisoned  wordes  could  content  and 
ease  this  neede,  we  wold  not  boldly  venture  of  unknowen 
wordes." 

In  his  Toxophilus,  published  in  1545,  Roger  Ascham 
also  ranges  himself  under  the  banner  of  the  conserva- 
tives. "He  that  wyll  wryte  well  in  any  tongue,"  he 


246  MODERN    ENGLISH 

says,  "  must  folowe  thys  council  of  Aristotle,  to  speake 
as  the  comon  people  do,  to  think  as  wise  men  do.  Many 
English  writers  haue  not  done  so,  but  usinge  straunge 
wordes  as  latin,  french,  and  Italian,  do  make  all  thinges 
darke  and  harde.  Ones  I  communed  with  a  man  whiche 
reasoned  the  englyshe  tongue  to  be  enryched  and  en- 
creased  thereby,  sayinge :  Who  wyll  not  prayse  that 
feaste,  where  a  man  shall  drinke  at  a  diner  bothe  wyne, 
ale,  and  beere  ?  Truely,  quod  I,  they  be  all  good,  euery 
one  taken  by  hym  selfe  alone,  but  if  you  putte  Malmesye 
and  sacke,  read  wyne  and  whyte,  ale  and  beere,  and  al 
in  one  pot,  you  shall  make  a  drynke  neyther  easie  to 
be  knowen  nor  yet  holsom  for  the  body."  A  similar 
argument  is  made  by  Wilson,  in  his  Arte  of  Rhetorike 
(1553) :  "  Some  seke  so  far  for  outlandishe  English, 
that  they  forget  altogether  their  mother's  language  — 
and  yet  these  fine  English  clerks  will  saie  they  speke  in 
their  mother^tongue,  if  a  man  should  charge  them  for 
counterfeyting  the  king's  English.  He  that  cometh 
lately  out  of  France,  will  talke  Frenche  Englishe,  and 
never  blush  at  the  matter.  Another  choppes  in  with 
English  Italianated,  and  applieth  the  Italian  phrase  to 
our  English  speaking  ...  I  know  them  that  thinke 
Rhetorike  to  stand  wholie  upon  darke  wordes ;  and  he 
that  can  catche  an  ynkehorne  term  by  the  tail,  hym  they 
compt l  to  be  a  fine  Englishman  and  good  rhetorician." 

The  same  side  is  taken  by  Gascoigne  in  his  Posies, 
published  in  1575.  He  declares  that  he  has  "alwayes 
bene  of  opinion  that  it  is  not  unpossible  eyther  in  Poemes 
or  in  Prose  too  write  both  compendiously  and  perfectly 
in  our  English  tongue.  And  therefore,  although  I  chal- 

1  From  Latiu  compute  —  Modern  English  "count." 


ENGLISH   WORDS  247 

enge  not  unto  my  selfe  the  name  of  an  English  Poet,  yet 
may  the  Reader  finde  oute  in  my  wry  tings,  that  I  have 
more  faulted  in  keeping  the  olde  English  wordes  (quam- 
vis  iam  obsoleta)  than  in  borrowing  of  other  such  Epi- 
thetes  and  Adjectives  as  smell  of  the  Inkhorne." 1  And, 
to  quote  one  more  of  these  scholar-critics,  we  find  Put- 
tenham,  in  his  Art  of  Poesie  (1589),  joining  the  chorus  : 
"Wa  finde  in  our  English  writers  many  wordes  and 
speaches  amendable;  and  ye  shall  see  in  some  many 
inkhorne  termes  so  ill  affected,  brought  in  by  men  of 
learnyng,  as  preachers  and  schoolemasters :  and  many 
straunge  termes  of  other  languages,  by  secretaries  and 
marchaunts  and  travailours,  and  many  darke  wordes, 
and  not  usual  nor  well  sounding,  though  they  be  daily 
spoken  in  court." 

But  these  complaints  and  cautionings  of  the  conserv- 
atives were  largely  in  vain.  The  result  of  the  conflict 
between  the  Latinists  and  the  Saxonists  was  a  virtual 
victory  for  the  Latinists.  The  whole  situation  is  admi- 
rably summed  up  in  the  following  passage  from  a  contem- 
porary writer,  who  is  rebutting  the  argument  of  those 
conservatives  who  maintained  that  English  had  lost  its 
credit  and  become  completely  bankrupt  as  result  of 
wholesale  borrowing: 

"  I  mervaile  how  our  English  tongue  hath  crackt  it  credit, 
that  it  may  not  borrow  of  the  Latine  as  wel  as  other  tongues; 
and  if  it  have  broken 2  it  is  but  of  late,  for  it  is  not  unknowen 
to  all  men,  how  many  wordes  we  have  fetcht  from  thence 

1  The  Posies,  edited  by  Cunliffe,  Vol.  I,  p.  5.    Elsewhere  he  adds  that 
he  has  rather  "  regarde  to  make  our  native  language  commendable  in  it 
selfe,  than  gay  with  the  feathers  of  straunge  birdes." 

2  That  is,  if  it  has  become  bankrupt. 


248  MODERN   ENGLISH 

within  these  few  yeeres,  which  if  they  should  be  all  counted 
ink-pot  tearmes,  I  know  not  how  we  shall  speake  anie  thing 
without  blacking  our  mouthes  with  inke :  for  what  word  can 
be  more  plain  than  this  word  (plain),  and  yet  what  can  come 
more  neere  to  the  Latine  ?  What  more  manifest  than  (mani- 
fest) ?  and  yet  in  a  manner  Latine :  what  more  commune 
than  (rare),  or  lesse  rare  than  (commune),  and  yet  both  of 
them  comming  of  the  Latine  ?  But  you  will  saie,  long  use 
hath  made  these  wordes  currant :  and  why  may  not  use  doe 
as  much  for  those  wordes  which  we  shall  now  devise  ?  Why 
should  we  not  doe  as  much  for  the  posteritie  as  we  have  re- 
ceived of  the  antiquitie  ?  .  .  .  But  how  hardlie  soever  you 
deale  with  youre  tongue,  how  barbarous  soever  you  count  it, 
how  little  soever  you  esteerne  it,  I  durst  myselfe  undertake 
(if  I  were  furnished  with  learning  otherwise)  to  write  in  it 
as  copiouslie  for  varietie,  as  compendiously  for  brevitie,  as 
choicely  for  words,  as  pithilie  for  sentences,  as  pleasantlie 
for  figures,  and  everie  waie  as  eloquentlie,  as  anie  writer 
should  do  in  anie  vulgar  tongue  whatsoever."1 

To  be  sure  not  all  the  words,  or  perhaps  even  most  of 
them,  which  the  enrichers  attempted  to  add  to  the  Eng- 
lish vocabulary  were  accepted  into  general  use.  But  the 
principle  of  their  contention  was  accepted  by  all,  and  of 
course  a  great  many  of  their  specific  recommendations. 
It  was  felt  that  the  English  language  to  be  a  fitting  me- 
dium for  the  expression  of  all  the  thought  of  Europe,  of 
all  that  the  Greek,  the  Latin,  the  Italian,  and  the  French 
had  expressed,  needed  to  extend  its  resources.  The 
result  was  not  a  wholesale  and  violent  importation  of 
foreign  words,  but  rather  a  tendency  towards  a  generous 

1  From  The  Civile  Conversation  of  M.  Stephen  Guazzo  .  .  .  translated  by 
G.  Pettie  out  of  French  (1586),  quoted  by  Raleigh,  Hoby's  Courtier,  pp. 
xlv-xlvi. 


ENGLISH  WORDS  249 

liberalism  which  allowed  a  writer  to  introduce  whatever 
words  he  could  make  good  use  of.  Naturally  these  ad- 
ditions to  the  vocabulary  were  largely  learned  or  semi- 
learned  words.  There  was  no  reason  why  common  objects 
should  receive  new  names,  since  they  already  had  perfectly 
adequate  terms  to  designate  them;  but  ideas  of  a  more 
or  less  abstract  character,  descriptive  words  often,  and 
words  designating  actions,  these  frequently  required  the 
invention  of  a  new  term.  Even  when  the  language 
already  possessed  a  fairly  adequate  word,  the  invention 
of  a  new  and  synonymous  one  often  enabled  a  writer  to 
express  himself  more  exactly  or  more  musically  and 
rhythmically.  It  is  of  course  absurd  to  give  a  single 
reason  for  so  complex  an  appearance  as  the  Elizabethan 
period  of  English  literature,  with  its  unequaled  throng 
of  poets  and  dramatists,  Shakspere  at  their  head.  But 
it  is  perhaps  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  broad- 
ening and  extending  of  the  English  language  in  the 
Renascence  period,  through  its  assimilation  to  itself  of 
all  the  preceding  culture  of  Europe,  was  a  necessary 
preliminary  to  the  appearance  of  a  world-poet  like  Shak- 
spere in  England.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  no  telling  that 
Shakspere  might  not  have  been  born  and  expressed  him- 
self just  as  powerfully  and  with  just  as  universal  an 
appeal  if  the  language  had  not  been  subjected  to  the 
critical  examination  and  augmentation  of  the  Latinist 
theorizers,  if  it  had  remained  practically  as  it  was  at 
the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century.  We  cannot  prove 
that  this  would  not  have  been  true,  but  we  can  fairly 
doubt  it.  We  can  point  out  that  no  other  Teutonic 
nation  has  produced  a  figure  to  be  compared  with 
Shakspere,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Goethe,  in 


250  MODERN  ENGLISH 

Germany,  and  that  even  Goethe,  who  lived  and  died 
two  centuries  after  Shakspere,  must  yield  to  the  great 
Elizabethan  when  we  consider  both  from  the  side  of 
their  cosmopolitan  appeal.  Goethe  is  the  greatest  poet 
of  Germany,  but  Goethe  is  not  known  and  admired 
in  Italy,  France,  and  England  as  Shakspere  is  in 
Italy,  France,  and  Germany.  The  French  influence 
of  the  Middle  English  period,  followed  by  the  class- 
ical influence  of  the  Renascence  period,  both  working 
upon  the  solid  and  constant  Teutonic  base,  these  are 
the  great  influences  which  have  made  the  English  lan- 
guage what  it  is,  have  given  it  a  variety,  a  richness, 
and  an  adaptability  that  enabled  a  great  poet  like 
Shakspere  to  use  it  as  the  measure,  not  only  of  all 
English  thought,  but  of  the  thought  of  the  western 
world. 

19.  Word-pairs  in  English.  Before  passing  on  to 
the  consideration  of  later  borrowings  in  English,  one 
question  relating  to  the  earlier  borrowings  frequently 
misstated  and  misunderstood  must  be  given  a  moment's 
attention.  This  is  the  question  of  the  use  of  words  in 
pairs  by  the  English  writers  of  the  Middle  English  and 
Renascence  periods,  as  in  the  following  examples  from 
the  Prayer  Book  (1549):  pray  and  beseech;  dissemble 
nor  cloak  ;  vanquish  and  overcome  ;  defender  and  keeper; 
dearth  and  scarcity,  etc.  It  is  often  mistakenly  sup- 
posed that  this  habit  of  using  two  synonymous  words 
for  one  idea  arose  in  the  Middle  English  period  as  a 
result  of  the  bilingual  development  of  English  at  that 
time.  It  is  assumed  that  a  writer  when  he  used  a  word 
of  French  origin  would  join  with  it  an  explaining  word 
of  similar  meaning  of  English  origin,  and,  vice  versa>  a 


ENGLISH  WORDS  251 

word  of  English  origin  would  be  used  to  explain  a  word 
of  French  origin.1 

An  examination  of  actual  usage,  however,  does  not 
support  the  theory,  since  it  is  found  that  words  occur  in 
pairs  without  reference  to  their  etymological  origin.  In 
Chaucer's  Prolog,  for  example,  occur  sixteen  word- 
pairs  consisting  of  one  French  and  one  English  word, 
thirteen  in  which  both  are  English,  and  nine  in  which 
both  are  French,  making  a  total  of  twenty-two  in  which 
the  theory  of  bilingualism  is  not  illustrated  as  opposed 
to  sixteen  in  which  it  might  be  illustrated.2 

But  there  are  other  good  reasons  besides  this  testimony 
of  actual  practice  for  disbelieving  that  their  etymological 
origin  had  anything  to  do  with  the  coupling  of  words 
together  in  pairs.  An  examination  of  earlier  English  lit- 
erature before  the  time  of  French  influence,  and  conse- 
quently before  any  bilingual  tendencies  can  be  supposed 
to  operate,  shows  the  same  custom  in  the  use  of  synony- 
mous word-pairs.  In  the  Blickling  Homilies,  for  example, 
written  towards  the  end  of  the  tenth  century,  in  the 
Alfredian  translation  of  Bede's  Ecclesiastical  History, 
and  elsewhere,  we  find  word-pairs  very  abundantly 
used,  both  words  necessarily  being  English.  Moreover, 
it  would  be  easy  to  find  illustrations  of  the  same  device 
of  expression  in  other  languages  than  English,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  Latin  of  Cicero,  in  which  the  theory  of 
bilingualism  could  not  possibly  enter.  In  short,  the  real 
sxplanation  of  the  use  of  words  in  pairs  is  rhetorical  and 
oratorical  rather  than  etymological.  By  the  use  of  two 

1  For  a  typical  misstatement  of  the  question,  see  Earle,  Philology  of 
the  English  Tongue  (1892),  §§  77,  78. 

3  See  Emerson,  Modern  Language  Notes,  viii,  202-20?, 


252  MODERN  ENGLISH 

words  a  writer  often  gets  a  richer  cadence,  an  oratorical 
amplification  of  the  expression  that  may  seem  to  him  more 
effective  than  the  use  of  a  single  word  would  be.  A 
language  rich  in  synonyms,  as,  for  example,  Modern 
English,  is  peculiarly  liable  to  an  abuse  of  this  rhetorical 
device ;  it  is  an  easy  one,  and  young  writers  are  much 
given  to  the  use  of  two  parallel  words  where  one  would 
answer  as  well.  This  is  due  less  to  a  desire  for  clearness 
than  "  to  that  craving  for  symmetry  which  finds  expres- 
sion in  all  varieties  of  antitheses  and  balance.  .  .  .  Mr. 
Swinburne's  adjectives  and  substantives  hunt  in  fierce 
couples  through  the  rich  jungle  of  his  prose.  The  taste  for 
pairs,  once  acquired,  like  all  the  tastes  of  the  wealthy,  is 
hard  to  put  off."1  Altho  the  origin  and  the  use  of 
word-pairs  is  due  to  some  such  rhetorical  or  oratorical 
cause  as  has  been  mentioned,  it  should  not  be  over- 
looked that  in  the  period  of  the  Renascence,  with  its 
more  or  less  conscious  attitude  towards  vocabulary, 
the  doctrine  of  bilingualism  is  a  little  more  to  the 
point  in  explaining  the  use  of  word-pairs.  Undoubtedly 
a  strange  word  was  often  explained  by  coupling  with 
it  a  familiar  word,  and  both  Caxton  and  Sir  Thomas 
Elyot  expressly  state  that  such  was  their  custom. 
Translators  were  especially  given  to  the  use  of  several 
words  in  translating  a  single  word  of  their  original. 
Lord  Berners'  translation  of  Froissart,  for  example, 
has  such  groups  as  the  following :  "  they  show,  open, 
manifest  and  declare  to  the  reader";  "what  we  should 
inquire,  desire  and  follow";  "with  what  labors,  dangers 
and  perils,"  etc.  Caxton,  also,  in  order  to  make  sure 
that  he  is  expressing  the  meaning  of  his  original  fully, 

1  Raleigh,  Introduction  to  Hoby's  Courtier,  p.  Iviii. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  253 

often  uses  two  synonymous  words,  without  reference 
however  to  etymology,  when  the  French  or  Latin  from 
which  he  is  translating  uses  but  a  single  word.1 

20.  Later  Borrowings  in  English.    No  later  period 
G£   English   has    borrowed  words   so  freely  from  other 
languages  as  did  the  Middle  English  and  the  Renascence 
periods.     By  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century 
the  English  vocabulary  in  its  main  outlines  was  fixed 
for  once  and  all.     Consequently  in  reading  Shakspere, 
altho  there  are   occasional   words   which  have   become 
obsolete,  or  which  are  now  used  in  somewhat  different 
senses  from  Shakspere's,  we  nevertheless  feel   that  in 
general  the  dramatist's  vocabulary  is  Modern  English. 
It  is  no  longer  in  an  experimental  stage,  as,  for  example, 
Caxton's   is,   but   is  the    definitely  fixed  and   settled 
vocabulary  of  the   English   language.     This   does  not 
mean  that  no  new  words  have  been  added  to  English 
since  Shakspere's  time.    On  the  contrary,  the  language 
has  been  continually  receiving  new  words;  it  does  so 
to-day,  and  will  doubtless  continue  to  borrow  from  other 
languages  as  long  as  the  English  people  are  thrown  into 
contact  with  other  peoples. 

21.  Later  Borrowings  from  French.    French  words 
have  been  taken  over  into  English  in  modern  times  most 
abundantly  in  the  late  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen- 
turies, in  the  so-called  Augustan  or  Classical  period  of 
English  literature.    At  this  time  French  again  came  to  be 
regarded  in  England  as  a  polite  language.   This  was  partly 


1  For  further  discussion  of  these  points,  see  Raleigh,  as  above';  Griffin, 
in  the  Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association,  xv,  172,  note; 
Hart,  "  Rhetoric  in  the  Translation  of  Bede,"  in  An  English  Miscellany, 
presented  to  Dr.  Furnivall,  pp.  150-154. 


254  MODERN   ENGLISH 

due  to  the  influence  of  Charles  II,  who,  having  acquired 
French  tastes  during  his  residence  in  France,  transferred 
his  French  habits  and  preferences  to  the  English  court  on 
his  restoration  to  the  English  throne  in  1660.  It  became 
a  fashionable  custom  of  the  time  to  interlard  one's  speech 
with  French  words  and  phrases,  a  custom  which  is  fre- 
quently satirized  in  the  comedies  of  the  period.  Never- 
theless a  good  number  of  the  faddish  and  fashionable 
words  thus  introduced  seemed  to  be  needed,  since  they 
have  persisted  in  the  language,  and  have  now  become 
every-day  words  in  the  vocabulary.  Examples  are  words 
like  cadet,  caprice,  caress,  coquet,  dessert,  festoon,  gazette, 
grimace,  grotesque,  guitar.  It  should  be  noted  that  many 
of  the  French  words  introduced  in  this  period  have  the 
accent  on  the  second  syllable,  following  thus  the  French 
rule  of  accent,  whereas  words  of  French  origin  intro- 
duced in  the  earlier  periods  have  all  changed  the  accent 
from  the  second  to  the  first  syllable,  following  the 
English  rule,  as,  for  example,  palace  (French  palais'), 
courage  (French  courage').  In  general  it  is  a  safe  rule 
that  when  a  word  of  French  origin  bears  an  accent  on 
the  second  syllable,  the  word  is  of  late  introduction  into 
English. 

In  contemporary  English,  French  words  of  several 
kinds  have  been  borrowed.  We  have,  for  example,  a 
number  of  words  which  constitute  what  might  be  called 
hotel  French,  such  as  menu,  entree,  carafe,  chef,  demi 
tasse,  suite  (of  rooms),  table  d'hdte,  d  la  carte,  etc. 
Another  group  comes  under  the  head  of  milliner's  French, 
words  like  toilette,  habit  (meaning  dress) ;  coiffure, 
manteau,  etc. ;  and  another  might  be  called  society 
French,  words  like  debut,  fiancee,  nee,  soiree,  musicale,  etc. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  255 

The  interest  of  the  French  in  automobiles  and  mechanical 
invention  in  general  has  resulted  in  the  common  use  of 
a  number  of  words  which  may  be  called  engineer's 
French,  e.  g.,  aeronaut,  aerostat,  caisson,  chauffeur,  garage, 
tonneau,  etc. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  balance  between 
Modern  English  borrowings  from  French  and  Modern 
French  borrowings  from  English  inclines  rather  in  favor 
of  the  English.  Some  of  the  English  words  taken  over 
into  French  in  the  last  two  centuries  are  the  following : 
redingote  (English  riding-coat),  jockey,  rhum  (English 
rum),  rosbif  (roast-beef),  ponche  (punch),  pique-nigue 
(picnic),  boulingrin  (bowling-green),  club,  boghei  (buggy"), 
dog-cart,  tramway,  cricket,  foot-ball,  boule-dogue  (bull- 
dog), lawn  tennis,  bifteck  (beefsteak),  pannequet  (pan- 
cake), sandwich,  chdle  (shawl),  black-bouler  (to  blackball), 
fifoclock  (five  o'clock),  higlif  (high  life),  toast,  home.1 

22.  Borrowings  from  German.  English  has  never 
shown  a  strong  tendency  to  borrow  from  German,  and 
the  number  of  German  words  in  the  English  vocabulary 
is  consequently  small.  Some  of  those  which  have  been 
taken,  however,  are  very  characteristic  words,  like  waltz, 
carousey  poodle,  meerschaum;  a  few  words  naming  ob- 
jects or  foods,  like  pretzel,  stein  (a  drinking-mug),  sauer- 
kraut, mangel-wurzel  (the  name  of  a  vegetable).  A 
number  of  words  naming  minerals,  bismuth,  blende,  cobalt, 
quartz,  shale,  zinc,  etc.  are  from  German,  illustrating 

1  See  Nyrop,  Grammaire  historique  de  la  Langue  Frangaise,  Vol.  I, 
pp.  75,  84-85.  Nyrop  remarks,  p.  84,  that  "  the  language  which  unques- 
tionably has  furnished  and  which  continues  to  furnish  the  largest  number 
of  borrowed  words  to  modern  French  is  English."  The  words  are  es- 
pecially those  connected  with  "commerce,  manufacturing,  sport,  and 
fashion." 


256  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  fact  that  "  it  was  in  Germany  that  mineralogy 
attained  the  rank  of  a  science." 1  The  word  carous*, 
from  German  gar  aus,  that  is,  "  all  out,"  was  taken  over 
in  the  early  Elizabethan  period.  It  designated  original] y 
a  drinking  custom  similar  to  that  known  as  drinking 
super  nagulum  —  "  which  is,  after  a  man  hath  turnd  vp 
the  bottom  of  the  cup,  to  drop  it  on  hys  naile  and  make 
a  pearle  with  that  is  left ;  which,  if  it  slide,  and  he  can- 
not mak  stand  on,  by  reason  thers  too  much,  he  must 
drinke  againe  for  his  penance."  2 

A  few  words  are  more  or  less  used  in  their  German 
form,  tho  they  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  been  adopted 
into  English.  Examples  are  heimweh,  "  homesick- 
ness ";  Zeitgeist,  literally  "  time-spirit,"  that  is,  u  the 
spirit  of  the  age  " ;  weltschmerz,  literally  "  world-pain, '' 
"  weariness  of  the  world  "  ;  vaterland,  "  fatherland  "  ; 
hinterland,  meaning  the  region  or  land  back  of  a  sea- 
port necessary  to  support  it.  In  the  instance  of  the 
phrase  Use  majeste,  a  French  phrase  is  borrowed  to  des- 
ignate what  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  distinctly  a 
German  idea,  the  German  word  for  it  being  majestatn- 
beleidigung.  The  word  kindergarten  came  into  English 
with  the  thing  itself,  which  originated  in  Germany. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Germans,  like  the  French, 
have  borrowed,  and  continue  to  borrow  freely,  from 
English,  especially  of  recent  years.  The  words  which 
they  have  taken  over  are  of  many  different  kindft 
Many  words  of  more  or  less  fashionable  character  have 
been  borrowed,  showing  the  German  admiration  for 
English  social  customs  and  conduct.  A  few  such  word  a 

1  Bradley,  Making  of  English,  p.  103. 

a  Nashe,  Pierce  Penilesse,  ed.  Grosart,  II,  78. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  257 

are  the  following:  butler,  groom,  nurse,  porter,  gentle- 
man, four-in-hand,  schlips  (meaning  necktie,  and  adapted 
from  English  slip,  which,  of  course,  never  meant  neck- 
tie; the  Germans,  however,  confused  the  word  with 
their  own  native  word  for  necktie,  i.  e.,  SMeife)  ;  smoking 
(for  Tuxedo  coat,  being  an  abbreviation  of  smoking- 
jacket)  ;  knock-about  (a  soft  felt  hat)  ;  Raglan,  Redingote, 
Mackintosh,  Spenzer  (English  Spencer),  Ulster,  all  these 
being  names  of  different  kinds  of  coats.  Numerous 
words  were  taken  over  into  what  the  Germans  call 
"  sport,"  meaning  thereby  usually  field-sports  after  the 
English  fashion.  Examples  are  cricket,  croquet,  lawn- 
Unnis  (with  all  the  terminology  of  tennis),  goal,  golf, 
handicap,  rekord  (English  record),  sweater,  trainer, 
turf,  jockei  {jockey),  finish,  robber  (i.  e.,  rubber,  in 
whist),  etc.  Words  of  nautical  and  seafaring  character 
in  general  have  also  been  borrowed,  e.  g.,  brigg  (brig), 
chartern  (to  charter),  driften  (to  drift),  ballast,  jacht 
(yacht),  sloop,  steward,  tender,  top  (of  mast),  trimmen 
(to  trim,  i.e.,  sails,  etc.),  kommodore  (commodore), 
s^hmack  (smack),  etc.  A  few  further  miscellaneous 
illustrations  are  the  following:  bombast,  essay,  slang, 
clown,  punch,  humbug,  lift  (i.  e.,  elevator),  dschungel 
(jungle,  Kipling's  Jungle  Book  being  called  Dschungel- 
buch),  scheck  (check),  stocks,  store,  streik,  streiken 
(strike,  to  strike),  kake  (cake),  etc.1 

23.  Various  Borrowings  in  English.  From  Italian 
Modern  English  has  borrowed  a  number  of  words, 
chiefly  relating  to  music  and  the  fine  arts,  as,  for  ex- 

1  See  Meyerfeld,  Von  Sprach  und  Art  der  Deutschen  und  Engldnder, 
Berlin,  1903  ;  also  an  article  by  Professor  Tombo,  Jr.,  in  the  New  Yorker 
Staats-Zeitung,  August  18,  1907. 

17 


258  MODERN   ENGLISH 

ample,  piano,  opera,  studio,  fresco.  Words  of  Span- 
ish origin  are  desperado,  matador,  ambuscade,  grandee, 
and  a  few  others.  From  Russian  have  come  knout, 
steppe,  verst,  and  very  recently  duma  (also  spelled 
douma  and  douhma),  vodka,  ikon,  pogrom,  etc.  Modern 
Dutch  has  given  a  number  of  nautical  terms,  e.  g.,  loom, 
dock,  hull,  sloop,  yacht,  skipper.  A  few  words  have 
entered  Modern  English  from  the  Scandinavian  lan- 
guages, e.  g.,  floe,  fiord,  viking,  troll,  saga,  geyser, 
gantlet,  ski.  As  a  result  of  the  English  occupation  of 
India,  a  number  of  words  of  East  Indian  origin  have 
made  their  way  into  English ;  examples  are  bandanna, 
chutney  (a  kind  of  sauce),  cowry,  loot,  indigo,  rajah, 
rupee,  etc.  From  the  American  Indians  we  have  bor- 
rowed squaw,  wigwam,  wampum,  tobacco,  potato,  toboggan, 
moccasin,  pemmican,  besides,  of  course,  many  place 
names.  From  Malay  have  come  gingham,  gong,  gutta- 
percha,  lory,  orang-outang,  amuck,  and  ketchup.1  From 
Chinese  have  come  tea,  mandarin,  ginseng;  from  the 
Philippines,  datto,  manila ;  from  the  Polynesian  dialects, 
taboo,  tattoo.  Perhaps  there  is  no  people  with  which  the 
English  have  come  in  contact  for  any  length  of  time 
that  has  not  added  a  word  or  two  to  the  language. 
These  words  are  all  interesting  as  showing  the  kinds  of 
relations'  which  existed  between  the  English  and  the 
various  other  peoples.  But  relatively  their  number 
must  always  be  small.  Modern  English  has  not  felt  the 
need  of  any  very  extensive  borrowing,  and  with  one  ex- 
ception, to  be  noted  in  the  next  paragraph,  has  managed 
to  get  along  satisfactorily  on  its  inherited  resources. 
Foreign  words  are  sometimes  taken  into  the  language 

1  Bradley,  Making  of  English,  p.  104. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  259 

temporarily.  They  are  used  as  long  as  the  special  cir- 
cumstances which  called  them  into  prominence  are 
present,  but  afterwards  they  pass  completely  out  of  use. 
Thus,  during  the  Spanish- American  war  a  number  of 
words  became  familiar  to  the  American  public  through 
their  use  in  the  newspapers,  words  like  pronunciamento, 
machete,  reconcentrado ;  and  during  the  Boer  war  a 
number  of  South  African  words  gained  considerable  cur- 
rency, as,  for  example,  kojy'e  (hill),  trek,  laager,  Uit- 
lander.  But  such  words  might  be  called  "occasional 
words."  They  do  not  respond  to  any  permanent  need 
of  the  people,  and  after  the  occasion  which  brings  them 
into  use,  they  tend  to  disappear  altogether  from  the 
language. 

The  one  instance  in  which  Modern  English  continues 
to  borrow  freely  from  foreign  languages  is  in  its  scien- 
tific and  pseudo-scientific  vocabulary.  Here  the  general 
tendency  is  to  name  all  new  inventions  and  discov- 
eries by  Latin  or  Greek  words,  usually  the  former,  either 
separately  or  in  composition.  Thus  Lord  Rayleigh,  the 
discoverer  of  the  new  element  argon  a  few  years  ago, 
made  up  the  name  for  it  from  the  two  Greek  elements 
a-,  a  prefix  with  a  negative  value,  like  English  in-,  and 
epyov,  work,  the  whole  meaning  "  not  working,"  or  "  in- 
active," the  significance  of  the  name  being  found  in  the 
fact  that  argon  does  not  readily  combine  with  other 
elements.  The  recently  discovered  Roentgen  rays  have 
also  brought  to  light  a  new  substance,  radium,  the  name 
of  which  is  taken  from  the  Latin  radium,  "ray,"  the 
characteristic  of  the  substance  being  the  emission  of  rays 
of  light.  Some  of  the  applications  of  science  to  practical 
purposes  have  carried  with  them  their  classical  terminol- 


260  MODERN   ENGLISH 

ogy.  The  word  telephone,  for  example,  is  made  up  <it 
two  Greek  elements,  r?;Xe-,  "  far,"  and  (frcovij,  "  sound  " 
Words  like  telegram,  telegraph,  telharmonic,  are  similar 
compounds.  The  word  phonograph  is  made  up  of  Greek 
$(*>vr},  u  sound,"  and  the  root  ypacj)-,  meaning  "  to  write," 
the  whole  word  thus  meaning  literally  "  sound- writer, " 
Automobile  is  a  hybrid  compound,  that  is,  its  two  ele- 
ments are  taken  from  different  languages,  auto-  being 
from  Greek  avrdv,  "  self,"  and  mobilehom  the  Latin  word 
of  the  same  form,  meaning  "  moving,"  the  whole  com- 
pound meaning  therefore  u  self-moving.'"  Other  words 
entirely  from  Latin  are  carbon,  from  Latin  carbo  ;  insula- 
tion from  insulate,  which  is  a  past  participle  from  the 
Latin  verb  insulare,  formed  from  the  noun  insula, 
"  island  "  (cf.  isolate)  ;  calcium  from  Latin  calx  ;  sptv- 
trum,  from  the  Latin  word  of  the  same  form. 

Commercial  terms  are  also  often  made  of  Latin  or 
Greek  words,  as,  for  example,  the  names  of  product. s 
like  glucose,  oleomargarine,  cottolene ;  the  tooth-powd  e.r 
called  sozodont  from  Greek  crwfw,  "  I  save,"  and  6S6vr-, 
"  tooth  "  ;  and  a  great  many  others  of  like  formation. 

24.  Etymology.  Since  the  English  vocabulary  is  de- 
rived from  so  many  different  sources,  it  will  be  readily 
seen  that  the  study  of  etymology,  which  is  the  study  of 
the  origin  and  history  of  words,  is  one  of  peculiar  impor- 
tance to  those  whose  native  speech  is  English.  It  is  not 
always,  or  indeed  generally,  necessary  to  know  the  ety- 
mology of  a  word  in  order  to  use  it  correctly.  Words 
mean  to-day  exactly  the  ideas  which  they  convey  from 
one  person  to  another,  and  any  forcible  attempt  to  ma  ke 
their  present  use  conform  to  their  etymological  meaning 
is  pedantic  and  vain.  Thus  the  word  villain  etymolojfi- 


ENGLISH  WORDS  261 

oally  is  related  to  village,  and  meant  originally  a  serf,  or 
person  who  was  bound  to  the  land.  From  the  meaning 
of  u  serf  "  or  "  villager,"  through  the  stages  "  ignorant,'* 
then  "  degraded,"  the  word  has  come  to  its  present 
meaning,  "  an  evil  or  wicked  person.1'  Its  value  there- 
fore in  Modern  English  must  be  determined  by  its  use, 
not  by  its  etymological  history.  Nevertheless,  as  one's 
knowledge  of  the  history  and  origins  of  one's  vocabulary 
increases,  in  the  same  degree  one's  use  of  words  will 
grow  in  definiteness  and  certainty  of  meaning,  and  in 
richness  of  content.  All  great  writers  have  been  earnest 
etymologists;  they  have  striven  to  give  their  words  as 
full  and  rich  a  meaning  as  they  would  hold,  and  the 
reader,  on  his  side,  can  get  as  much  meaning  out  of  them 
only  when  his  knowledge  equals  that  of  his  author. 

Etymology,  however,  is  something  more  than  mere 
guess-work.  Because  two  words  look  alike,  it  is  not 
always  safe  to  infer  that  they  are  forms  of  the  same 
word.  In  Old  English  there  are  two  words  god  and 
god,  the  first  with  a  short  vowel,  giving  Modern  English 
god,  the  second,  with  the  long  vowel,  giving  Modern 
English  good.  But  the  two  words  are  etymologically 
altogether  distinct ;  one  is  not  derived  from  the  other, 
and  the  etymology  which  one  hears  sometimes  from  the 
lips  of  preachers,  "  God  is  good,"  is  altogether  false.  In 
Modern  English  the  adverb  gingerly,  as  in  the  phrase 
"to  touch  something  gingerly  with  the  tips  of  the 
fingers,"  looks  as  though  it  had  some  connection  with 
the  noun  ginger,  —  certainly  not  an  obvious  connection, 
altho  with  ingenuity  one  might  be  able  to  hammer  it 
out.  In  fact,  however,  the  word  gingerly  is  not  etymo- 
logically related  to  ginger,  but  to  gentle,  gentry,  etc.,  and 


262  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  similarity  in  form  does  not  indicate  any  relationship 
in  meaning.1  This  method  of  explaining  the  etymologies 
of  words  by  their  general  apparent  similarities  to  other 
words  was  the  one  in  common  use  until  the  compara- 
tively recent  results  of  the  exact  study  of  language, 
especially  phonetics,  enabled  scholars  to  formulate  the 
rules  of  etymologizing  in  a  systematic  and  scientific  way. 
Thus  Chaucer,  in  his  version  of  the  life  of  St.  Cecilia  in 
the  Canterbury  Tales,  following  the  custom  of  his  period, 
gives  a  half  dozen  different  etymologies  of  the  name 
Cecilia,  all  of  them  pure  guesses  and  all  of  them  wrong. 
Shakspere,  in  Cymbeline?  gives  a  similarly  fanciful 
etymology  of  the  Latin  word  mulier,  "  woman,"  from 
mollis  aer. 

Two  writers  of  modern  times  who  were  particularly 
given  to  the  vicious  habit  of  careless  etymologizing  are 
Carlyle  3  and  Ruskin.  In  illustration  of  Ruskin's  method 
we  may  quote  the  following  passage :  "  What  do  you 
think  the  beautiful  word  '  wife '  comes  from  ?  It  is  the 
great  word  in  which  the  English  and  Latin  knguages 
conquer  the  French  or  Greek.  I  hope  the  French  will 
some  day  get  a  word  for  it  instead  of  their  femme.  But 
what  do  you  think  it  comes  from  ?  The  great  value  of 
the  Saxon  words  is  that  they  mean  something.  '  Wife ' 

1  The  word  niggard  is  derived  from  a  root-word  found  in  Scandinavian 
and  English,  meaning  scanty,  stingy,  plus  the  suffix  -ard,  as  in  dullard, 
coward,  etc.     This  makes  the  point  of  the  following  humorous  use  of  the 
word  in  Higginson's  Contemporaries,  p.  346  :  Dr.  Hackett  was  annoyed  by 
vagrant  boys,  who  delighted  in  filling  the  keyhole  of  his  hut  with  gravel. 
"  Such  conduct,"  Dr.  Hackett  said,  "  I  should  call,  sir,  —  with  no  disre- 
spect to  the  colored  population,  —  niggardly." 

2  See  Cymbeline,  Act  V,  v,  446 ;   also  V,   iv,  140,  and  V,  v,  437. 

8  See  Sartor  Resartus,  Chapter  VII,  where  Carlyle  gives  the  often- 
repeated  but  false  etymology  of  king  from  kenning  (cunning),  "  canning," 
"  the  one  who  can,"  or  "  is  able." 


ENGLISH  WORDS  263 

means  weaver.1  You  must  be  either  house-wives  or 
house-moths,  remember  that.  In  the  deep  sense,  you 
must  either  weave  men's  fortunes  and  embroider  them, 
or  feed  upon  them  and  bring  them  to  decay." 

The  absurdity  of  this  is  obvious.  Whatever  the  word 
wife  may  at  one  time  have  meant,  it  certainly  does  not 
now  mean  weaver,  and  all  of  Ruskin's  fine  sentiment  is 
based  upon  a  manifest  falsehood.  The  grave  defect  of 
all  such  etymologizing  is  that  it  takes  account  only  of 
the  mere  surface  similarities  that  exist  between  words, 
similarities  which  may  or  may  not  be  indications  of  a 
real  relationship,  but  which  are  never  systematically 
tested  or  examined.  The  weakness  of  such  etymologiz- 
ing is  usually  to  be  found  in  the  insufficient  knowledge 
and  observation  of  the  etymologizer.  Legitimate  and 
sound  etymologizing  is  not,  indeed,  work  for  novices. 
It  is  a  science  that  follows  a  method;  it  has  its  rules 
and  tests,  and  is  not  dependent  only  on  clever  guessing 
and  imagination.  The  tests  of  a  reasonable  etymology 
are  these :  (1)  it  must  be  in  accord  with  the  phonetic 
laws  concerned ;  (2)  it  must  agree  with  common  sense 
on  the  side  of  any  change  in  meaning  which  the  etymol- 
ogy supposes ;  and  (3)  in  the  case  of  borrowed  words,  it 
must  agree  with  probability  on  the  side  of  geograph- 
ical and  ethnological  relationships.  Thus,  if  we  find  a 
similarity  between  a  Hottentot  word  and  an  English 
one  of  Chaucer's  day,  it  must  be  shown  that  English 
might  have  borrowed  from  Hottentot,  or  vice  versa, 
before  an  etymology  deriving  one  from  the  other  can 
become  even  probable.  Until  one  has  had  considerable 

1  Presumably  because  wife  and  iveaver  have  initial  w  in  common,  and 
the  two  somewhat  similar  sounds /and  r. 


264  MODERN   ENGLISH 

practice  in  the  principles  involved,  the  safest  method  to 
follow  in  matters  of  etymology  is  to  trust  to  the  author- 
ity of  reputable  dictionaries  and  special  works  on  that 
subject. 

A  considerable  number  of  words,  it  should  be  observed, 
have  been  taken  over  into  English  in  exactly  the  forms 
in  which  they  occur  in  their  original  languages.  The 
problem  of  etymology  is  here  a  very  simple  one,  since 
the  words  suffer  no  change  of  form  in  transmission.  Ex- 
amples from  German  and  French  have  been  cited  above. 
But  the  language  from  which  such  direct  borrowings 
have  most  frequently  been  made  is  Latin.  The  follow- 
ing is  a  list  of  a  few  words  in  common  use  which  have 
exactly  the  same  form  in  both  languages :  animal,  apex, 
bonus,  dogma  (originally  Greek),  excursus,  exit,  extra, 
fungus,  genius,  index,  odium,  omen,  onus,  onyx,  opium, 
pastor,  pauper,  premium,  series,  species,  spectrum,  termi- 
nus, transit. 

It  was  remarked  above  that  the  meaning  of  a  word  in 
Modern  English  is  dependent  on  its  present  use,  and 
not  on  its  etymology,  a  point  which  should  not  be  over- 
looked. The  historical  meanings  of  words  and  their 
contemporary  meanings  are  often  the  same ;  but  when  the 
meaning  which  Shakspere  or  Chaucer  gave  to  a  word  is 
different  from  the  meaning  which  men  give  it  to-da}T, 
the  earlier  meaning  cannot  impose  itself  on  the  modern 
meaning.  People  often  say  that  a  word  ought  to  mean 
so  and  so,  because  its  etymology  is  this  or  that.  They 
forget  that  language  is  not  determined  by  theories  of 
what  ought  to  be  or  what  might  be,  but  by  the  condi- 
tions of  its  actual  use  to-day,  Thus  Jeremy  Taylor 
speaks  of  "holy  and  innocent  idiots,  or  plain  easy 


ENGLISH   WORDS  265 

people  of  the  laity."  A  plain  person  might  well  resent 
being  called  an  idiot  to-day,  because  the  word,  originally 
from  Greek  ISuorrjs,  "  a  private  person,"  hence  a  lay- 
man, as  distinguished  from  a  clerk,  has  developed  very 
far  away  from  its  primary  meaning.  The  word  lewd  has 
had  a  similar  history.  It  is  derived  from  Old  English 
loewed,  meaning  simply  a  layman ;  like  idiot  it  developed 
in  an  unfavorable  direction,  first  into  the  meaning  igno- 
rant, then  into  its  present  uncomplimentary  significance. 
To  take  another  illustration,  the  word  mischief  now 
applies  only  to  wrongful  or  vicious  acts ;  it  comes,  how- 
ever, from  an  Old  French  word  which  formerly  meant 
merely  "misfortune,"  "that  which  ends  badly."  The 
Book  of  the  Knight  of  the  Tour  Landry,  a  work  of 
good  counsel  which  a  father  wrote  for  the  use  of  his 
daughters  at  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and 
which  was  soon  translated  from  the  original  French 
into  English,  uses  the  word  in  its  old  sense  when  it 
advises  the  daughters  to  be  charitable,  "in  the  same 
wise  as  seint  Elizabeth,  seint  Luce,  seint  Cecile,  and 
mani  other  ladyes  that  were  charitables.  They  gauen 
the  moste  parte  of  thayre  good  vnto  pore  peple  that 
were  in  necessite  and  mischeef ." l  The  same  book 
speaks  of  robbery,  extortion,  tyranny,  murder,  "and 
mani  other  inconueniencies." 2  To  class  robbery  and 
murder  together  as  inconveniences  seems  a  little  odd 
until  we  realize  the  original  meaning  of  the  word,  which 
was  "  that  which  is  not  fitting,"  "  wrong,"  from  the 
Latin  negative  prefix  in-,  united  to  the  present  parti- 
ciple of  convenire^  to  be  fitting  or  proper. 

l  Early  English  Text  Society,  Vol.  XXXIII,  p.  152. 
«  Ibid.,  p.  92. 


266  MODERN  ENGLISH 

Certain  words  have  persisted  in  English  in  occasional 
uses  as  faded,  traditional  survivals.  They  preserve  the 
older  forms  of  the  words,  but  have  lost  the  older  mean- 
ing without  supplying  a  definite  new  meaning.  Thus 
we  speak  of  a  person  as  "  wading  through  blood,"  or 
"wading  in  his  own  blood."  One  need  only  visualize 
the  picture  suggested  by  the  modern  sense  of  "  wade  " 
to  see  how  ridiculous  these  phrases  would  seem  if  the 
word  were  given  its  literal  meaning.  But  the  word  wade 
in  these  uses  is  only  a  colorless  survival  from  its  older 
sense,  where  it  means  merely  "  to  go,  walk,"  as  in  the 
following  line : 

Beholde  how  he  wadep  yn  hys  owne  blod ! l 

Another  illustration  is  the  phrase  time  and  tide.  The 
word  tide,  in  the  sense  of  "  ocean  tide,"  fairly  fits  its  use 
in  the  familiar  proverb,  in  which  alone  the  phrase  is 
used ;  but  the  idea  of  ocean  tide  is  not  usually  in  the 
minds  of  speakers  when  they  pronounce  the  proverb. 
The  word  tide  in  the  phrase  really  has  no  definite  mean- 
ing, altho  originally  it  had  the  same  meaning  as  time, 
a  sense  which  is  still  preserved  in  compounds  like 
Christmas-tide,  Whitsuntide,  etc.  In  the  proverb,  there- 
fore, it  is  merely  a  colorless  survival,  like  wade.  Occa- 
sional words  of  this  nature  are  used  in  an  affected  way  in 
modern  literary  style.  Thus  one  now  and  then  meets 
the  phrase  "  hark  back  "  in  the  sense  "  return  to,"  as  in 
the  sentence  "  He  harked  back  to  the  subject  of  his  for- 
mer discourse,"  or  "  He  was  continually  harking  back  to 
the  experiences  of  the  preceding  summer."  It  is  often 
vaguely  used  also  in  the  sense  of  "  imitate,"  as  when  one 

l  Meditations  on  the  Passion,  Early  English  Text  Society,  Vol.  LX,  p.  1 7 


ENGLISH    WORDS  267 

poet  is  said  to  hark  back  to  another.  The  phrase  has 
necessarily  become  somewhat  vague  and  unnatural,  since 
its  primary  significance  is  lost,  and  no  new  definite  mean- 
ing has  been  given  to  it.  Originally  it  was  a  term  in 
hunting,  and  was  used  of  the  hounds  returning  "along 
the  course  taken  when  the  scent  has  been  lost,  till  it  is 
found  again."1  As  long  as  this  literal  meaning  was 
clear,  the  figurative  sense  of  the  phrase  was  intelligible  ; 
but  with  the  loss  of  literal  significance,  it  has  become 
merely  a  traditional  survival.  Another  phrase  of  the 
same  kind  is  "  at  the  first  blush,"  as  in  the  sentence,  "  At 
the  first  blush  it  would  seem  that  the  poets  were  little 
concerned  with  the  practical  affairs  of  life."  The  word 
"  blush "  has  now  no  meaning  which  can  make  this 
phrase  seem  reasonable.  Its  earlier  and  primary  mean- 
ing, however,  was  "look,"  "glance,"  and  the  phrase 
meant  "  at  the  first  glance."  Writers  who  use  it  nowa- 
days do  not  often  have  any  clear  sense  of  its  meaning, 
but  affect  it  merely  because  they  have  read  it  in  the 
works  of  some  one  else. 

25.  Proportion  of  the  Elements  of  the  English 
Vocabulary.  Altho  the  English  vocabulary  has  never 
ceased  to  open  its  doors  for  the  introduction  of  for- 
eign words,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  it  has  always 
remained  fundamentally  and  predominatingly  English. 
The  number  of  words  of  foreign  origin  used  by  different 
writers  naturally  varies  with  the  style  and  manner  of  the 
writers ;  the  same  writer  also  uses  sometimes  more  and 
sometimes  fewer  foreign  words,depending  largely  upon  the 
subject-matter  of  his  composition.  It  has  been  estimated 
that  the  proportion  of  native  words  to  foreign,  counting 

1  See  New  English  Dictionary,  under  "  hark  back." 


268  MODERN  ENGLISH 

each  word  every  time  it  occurs,  is  in  Shakspere  90  to  10 ; 
in  the  King  James  translation  of  the  Bible,  94  to  6 ;  in 
the  writings  of  Dr.  Johnson,  80  to  20 ;  of  the  historian 
Gibbon,  70  to  30 ;  of  Tennyson,  88  to  12.  In  the  normal 
colloquial  English  of  an  average  educated  person  the 
proportion  of  words  of  foreign  origin  probably  never 
rises  above  ten  per  cent.  This  low  percentage  of  foreign 
words  does  not  mean,  however,  that  they  are  ineffective 
and  unnoticeable  in  style.  Of  the  ninety  per  cent  of 
native  words,  a  large  part  is  made  up  of  colorless  words, 
like  the  articles,  prepositions,  conjunctions,  etc.;  and 
often  the  words  which  really  give  quality  and  tone  to  a 
passage  in  writing,  or  a  phrase  in  speech,  are  just  these 
occasional  and  somewhat  exceptional  words  of  foreign 
origin. 

By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  borrowed  element  in 
English  is  derived  from  Latin  and  Greek,  either  directly 
'  or  through  the  medium  of  a  French  form.  Some  idea  of 
the  extent  of  this  classical  element  in  English  can  be 
formed  from  the  fact  that  we  have  in  English  in  com- 
mon use,  not  counting  the  few  occasional  technical  and 
scientific  terms,  words  derived  from  about  450  Latin  root- 
forms.  Each  of  these  root-forms  is  represented  in  Eng- 
lish by  a  varying  number  of  differentiated  words.  Thus 
the  Latin  root  ped-,  meaning  "  foot,"  appears  at  least  in 
twelve  common  English  words  derived  from  it :  biped, 
expedite,  impede,  pawn  (a  figure  in  the  game  of  chess), 
peon,  pedal,  pedestrian,  pedicel,  pedigree,  pediment, 
pioneer,  quadruped.1  Other  roots  are  represented  by 
even  more  words  in  English.  The  root  due-,  for 
example,  as  in  Latin  ducere,  "  to  lead,"  appears  in 
1  For  the  etymology  of  all  these  words,  consult  the  dictionary. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  269 

27  words  in  English;  fac-,  as  in  Latin  facere,  "to  do," 
appears  in  39  words  ;  and  pon-t  as  in  ponere,  "  to  place," 
appears  in  36  words. 

The  number  of  English  words  derived  from  Greek 
roots  is  not  so  numerous  as  those  derived  from  Latin, 
the  total  number  of  root-forms  used  with  any  frequency 
falling  below  a  hundred.  An  example  of  a  Greek  root 
that  has  been  abundantly  productive  in  English  is  the 
root  contained  in  the  words  Xoyo?,  "  a  saying,"  and  Xeyetz/, 
"to  speak,"  which  appears  in  all  the  following  words: 
analogy,  apolog  (or  apologue),  apology,  catalog  (or  cata- 
logue), decalog  (or  decalogue),  dialect,  dialog  (or  dialogue), 
eclectic,  eclog  (or  eclogue),  epilog  (or  epilogue),  eulogy, 
lexicon,  logarithm,  logic,  monolog  or  {monologue),  prolog 
(or  prologue),  syllogism,  and  in  all  words  in  -logy,  as  astrol- 
ogy, biology,  neurology,  etc. 

26.  Purity  of  Vocabulary.  The  question  of  purity 
of  vocabulary  is  one  of  constant  recurrence.  According 
to  the  usual  understanding  of  the  term,  that  vocabulary 
is  said  to  be  "  pure  "  which  is  made  up  altogether,  or 
almost  exclusively,  from  words  of  a  single  native  stock. 
We  have  seen  that  the  vocabulary  of  the  Old  English 
period,  as  compared  with  that  of  the  Modern  English 
period,  is  relatively  very  "pure."  For  altho  Old 
English  borrowed  a  few  words  from  Latin  in  order  to 
name  objects  which  were  brought  to  England  by  the 
Roman  missionaries,  in  general  the  language  was  sparing 
in  its  use  of  new  words,  preferring,  when  necessary,  to 
adapt  an  old  word  to  a  new  meaning  rather  than  borrow 
a  new  word  outright.  Later,  however,  first  through  the 
Scandinavian  conquest,  then  through  the  French  influ- 
ence, then  the  Renascence,  and  finally  the  modern  inter- 


270  MODERN   ENGLISH 

est  in  science,  learning,  and  commerce,  English  has 
borrowed  a  vast  number  of  words.  From  a  "  pure,"  a 
unilingual  tongue,  it  has  come  to  be  a  polyglot  language, 
one  made  up  of  elements  from  a  variety  of  languages. 

Now  it  happens  that  this  polyglot  character  of  Modern 
English  carries  with  it,  to  some  minds,  the  connotation 
of  "impurity."  If  a  language  made  up  of  entirely  native 
elements  is  "pure,"  they  argue,  then  one  made  up  of 
divers  elements  is  "  impure,"  and,  to  that  extent,  less 
admirable  than  the  other.  This  feeling  for  the  purity  of 
the  language  is  partly  based  upon  patriotic  sentiment,  a 
reverence  for  the  native  idiom  as  such,  a  feeling  perhaps 
praiseworthy  in  itself,  but  not  one  which  alone  should  be 
allowed  to  determine  all  questions  of  vocabulary.  Of 
infinitely  more  importance  than  patriotic  sentiment  is 
the  matter  of  the  effectiveness  of  the  language  in  use. 
It  is  from  this  point  of  view  that  we  shall  consider  briefly 
the  question  of  purity. 

The  defense  usually  made  for  the  pure,  or  Saxon,  vo- 
cabulary has  been  best  presented  by  Herbert  Spencer, 
in  his  essay  entitled  The  Philosophy  of  Style.  Spencer 
argues  for  the  u  greater  forcibleness  of  Saxon  English,  or 
rather  non-Latin  English  "  ;  and  the  reasons  why  he  re- 
gards the  Saxon,  or  native,  vocabulary  as  more  forcible 
than  the  foreign,  are,  first,  early  association,  "  the  child's 
vocabulary  being  almost  wholly  Saxon  " ;  and,  second, 
the  brevity  of  Saxon  words  as  compared  with  words  of 
foreign  origin.  Spencer  further  adds  that  we  should 
endeavor  to  use  concrete  and  specific  words,  which  are 
usually  of  native  origin,  rather  than  abstract  and  gen- 
eral words,  which  are  usually  of  foreign  origin.  Thus,  he 
says,  we  should  avoid  such  sentences  as  the  following: 


ENGLISH  WORDS  271 

"  In  proportion  as  the  manners,  customs,  and  amusements 
of  a  nation  are  cruel  and  barbarous,  the  regulations  of 
their  penal  code  will  be  severe."  Instead  of  this  we 
should  write :  "  In  proportion  as  men  delight  in  battles, 
bull-fights,  and  combats  of  gladiators,  will  they  punish 
by  hanging,  burning,  and  the  rack." 

With  these  two  sentences  we  may  compare  a  sample 
of  Spencer's  own  style,  taken  from  the  body  of  this  same 
essay,  the  foreign  words  being  italicized :  "  As  we  do  not 
think  in  generals  but  in  particulars  —  as,  whenever  any 
class  of  things  is  referred  to,  we  represent  it  to  ourselves 
by  calling  to  mind  individual  members  of  it ;  it  follows 
that  when  an  abstract  word  is  used,  the  hearer  has  to 
choose  from  his  stock  of  images,  one  or  more,  by  which  he 
may  figure  to  himself  the  genus  mentioned" 

Mr.  Spencer's  own  style  is  in  large  measure  the 
answer  to  his  criticism.  In  the  above  passage  of  66 
words,  there  are  13  words  of  Latin  origin,  a  proportion 
of  19§  per  cent,  which  is  the  proportion  of  foreign  words 
in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Johnson.  Moreover,  the  sentence 
quoted  is  an  admirable  illustration  of  general,  or  abstract, 
statement ;  it  does  not  follow  Mr.  Spencer's  own  rule  of 
always  speaking  in  concrete  terms  —  as  indeed  it  should 
not,  since  the  purpose  of  the  sentence  is  to  make  a  gen- 
eralized statement,  and  not  to  give  a  group  of  concrete 
instances.  Again,  the  words  are  not  such  as  one  usually 
finds  in  the  vocabulary  of  children,  nor  are  they  remark- 
able for  their  brevity.  One  word,  genus,  is  distinctly  a 
learned  word.  Yet,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  sentence, 
which  is  fairly  representative  of  Mr.  Spencer's  style, 
breaks  all  the  rules  which  he  himself  gives  for  a  good 
style,  it  is  nevertheless  a  good  sentence.  It  has  those 


272  MODERN  ENGLISH 

qualities  of  clearness,  definiteness,  and  simplicity  which 
are  general  characteristics  of  Mr.  Spencer's  writings,  even 
when  he  writes  on  difficult  and  subtle  matters  of  philoso- 
phy. It  serves  its  purpose  well,  and  if  so,  can  anything 
more  be  asked  of  it?  In  short,  the  question  of  the 
proper  and  effective  use  of  words  is  not  dependent  upon 
their  length  or  their  origin  and  history,  but  upon  their 
immediate,  contemporary  value ;  and  their  value  is  always 
determined  by  the  purpose  which  the  person  speaking  or 
writing  has  in  mind.  Sometimes  it  is  effective  to  use 
short  words  —  if  one  wishes  to  produce  the  effect  which 
short  words  produce.  But  long  words  also  have  their 
place,  and  the  poetry  of  Milton  shows  that  they  can  be 
used  to  good  effect.  All  that  we  can  say,  therefore,  as 
to  the  choice  of  words,  is  that  we  should  use  the  words 
which  fit  the  thought,  whether  they  are  Saxon  or  Latin. 
A  Saxon  word,  because  it  is  a  Saxon  word,  has  no 
special  claims  or  special  powers,  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
has  a  Latin  word.  A  word  is  justified,  or  is  not  justified, 
by  its  effectiveness  in  expressing  the  thought  or  feeling 
of  the  person  who  uses  it,  and  any  considerations  beyond 
this  are  vain  theorizings. 

There  is  one  group  of  words  of  partial  foreign  origin 
that  is  often  regarded  with  special  disfavor  by  those  who 
are  governed  by  theories  of  the  purity  of  language. 
This  is  the  class  of  words  known  as  hybrids.  These 
are  compound  words,  the  elements  of  which  are  taken 
from  two  different  languages,  one  element  from  Greek, 
Latin,  or  French,  and  the  other  from  English.  A  num- 
ber of  such  compounds  are  in  common  use  in  English, 
so  common  in  fact  that  no  one  in  natural  speech  is 
ever  conscious  that  they  are  hybrids.  Thus  the  word 


ENGLISH  WORDS  273 

because  is  made  up  of  the  English  preposition  be-  and 
the  Latin  (through  the  French)  causa ;  around  is  com- 
pounded of  English  a-  and  French  round ;  plentiful,  of 
French  plenti-  and  English  -ful ;  outcry •,  of  English  out 
and  French  cry  ;  and  so  with  a  great  many  words.  In 
general  these  hybrids  have  become  so  much  a  part  of  the 
language  that  it  never  occurs  to  any  one  to  question 
them  because  of  the  manner  of  their  formation.  The 
hybrids  which  are  picked  out  to  bear  the  burden  of  the 
disapproval  of  the  purists  seem  indeed  to  be  rather 
arbitrarily  chosen.  Thus  it  is  assumed  that  the  Latin 
suffix  -al  should  be  united  only  to  words  of  obviously 
Latin  origin,  as  in  regal  from  Latin  regalia ;  legal  from 
legalis;  communal  from  communally  etc.  One  word 
which  violates  this  rule,  and  which  the  purist  therefore 
brands  as  incorrect,  is  the  adjective  racial,  compounded 
of  race  and  -al.1  That  there  is  anything  wrong  or 
blameworthy,  however,  in  combining  -al  with  a  root  not 
obviously  Latin,  is  disproved  by  such  words  as  tidal, 
from  English  tide  and  -al ;  postal,  from  French  post  and 
-al,  etc.,  which  have  been  taken  into  accepted  and  general 
good  use.  If  racial  has  not  been  taken  into  good  use, 
there  is  no  reason,  so  far  as  its  compositional  elements 
are  concerned,  why  it  should  not  be.  Likewise  the 
suffix  -ist,  which  is  ultimately  of  Greek  origin,  would 
be  restricted  by  some  theorists  to  composition  only  with 
words  of  Greek  origin,  as  chemist,  atheist,  monist,  etc. 
They  would,  therefore,  disapprove  of  that  free  extension 

1  The  following  is  typical:  "The  word  racial  is  an  ugly  word,  the 
strangeness  of  which  is  due  to  our  instinctive  feeling  that  the  termination 
•al  has  no  business  at  the  end  of  a  word  that  is  not  obviously  Latin." 
The  King's  English,  London,  1906,  p.  22. 

18 


274  MODERN   ENGLISH 

of  the  use  of  -ist  by  which  it  is  united  to  words  of  Latin, 
English,  or  other  origin,  as,  for  example,  words  like 
scientist,  florist,  druggist,  dentist,  tobacconist,  contortionist, 
publicist,  folk-lorist,  tourist,  typist,  elocutionist,  base-ballist, 
canoeist,  etc.  It  is  not  contended  that  all  these  words 
are  in  good,  reputable  use ;  but  some  of  them  certainly 
are,  and  the  determination  of  the  questions  which  are 
and  which  are  not,  or  which  should  be  and  which  should 
not  be,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  elements  of  which 
they  are  composed.  In  short,  the  true  guide  to  the  use 
of  hybrid  compounds  is  to  be  found,  not  in  the  history 
of  their  etymology,  but  in  their  actual  value  in  general 
use.  If  a  hybrid  compound  expresses  an  idea  ade- 
quately, it  is  in  itself  as  good  a  word  as  any  which 
is  not  a  hybrid,  since  the  so-called  "pure"  word  can- 
not do  any  more.  It  may  be  that  certain  of  these 
hybrids  cited  have  not  been  accepted  into  good  use, 
among  which  we  may  perhaps  include  typist,  canoeist, 
educationalist,  conversationalist,  and  others.  But  where 
this  is  true,  the  reason  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  mere 
fact  of  hybridity,  since  many  hybrids  have  been  accepted 
into  good  use.  The  reasons  are  undoubtedly  various, 
dependent  upon  the  separate  history  of  each  word ;  but 
what  these  reasons  may  be  is  a  matter  of  little  impor- 
tance compared  with  the  fact  itself  of  the  acceptance  or 
the  non-acceptance  of  the  respective  words  into  normal, 
unquestioned  use.  Such  an  acceptance  is  all  the  justi- 
fication which  a  hybrid  compound,  or  any  other  word 
for  that  matter,  needs  to  make  it  a  reputable  word; 
and  the  acceptance  or  rejection  of  a  word  of  whatever 
kind  is  a  matter  almost  altogether  independent  of  its 
etymology. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  275 

27.  Profit   and  Loss   in  Word-borrowing,      The 

question  naturally  arises,  after  a  consideration  of  the  ele- 
ments of  the  English  vocabulary,  whether  or  not  the 
language  has  been  altogether  the  gainer  by  word-bor- 
rowing. That  the  introduction  of  foreign  words  has 
been  advantageous  in  many  ways  is  of  course  unques- 
tioned. The  language  has  not  become  bankrupt  as  a 
result  of  word-borrowing,  as  many  of  its  Renascence 
critics  feared  it  would.  New  ideas  have  been  ap- 
propriated, new  standards  of  thinking  and  conduct, 
and,  as  the  race  has  grown  in  cosmopolitan  spirit, 
its  vocabulary  has  kept  pace  with  it.  Another  gain 
from  word-borrowing  is  to  be  found  in  the  variety  of  the 
English  vocabulary,  especially  its  richness  in  synonyms. 
These  synonyms,  or  approximately  synonymous  words, 
for  language  does  not  often  preserve  two  words  of 
exactly  the  same  value,  enable  the  discriminating  writer 
to  express  extremely  subtle  shades  of  thought  and 
feeling.  In  illustration  of  such  terms  we  may  cite  word- 
pairs  like  the  following :  science,  knowledge;  informa- 
tion, wisdom  ;  virtue,  goodness  ;  malevolence,  wickedness; 
benevolence,  goodwill ;  regal  or  royal,  kingly ;  infant, 
child  or  baby  ;  adults,  elders,  etc.  Sometimes  we  have 
four  or  five  words  with  closely-related  meanings,  as  still, 
placid,  quiet,  calm,  peaceful;  or  vast,  great,  large,  big. 
Yet  each  of  these  has  its  own  special  uses.  A  big  man 
is  not  the  same  as  a  great  man. 

Another  advantage  which  the  English  vocabulary  has 
by  reason  of  its  large  number  of  words  of  foreign  origin, 
especially  of  Latin  origin,  is  that  the  language  has  at  its 
disposal  two  widely  different  styles  of  expression,  two 
planes  of  utterance,  the  one  learned  or  elevated,  th* 


276  MODERN  ENGLISH 

other  simple  and  popular.  Perhaps  this  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  an  unmixed  advantage.  Perhaps  it  would 
be  better  if  the  most  learned  and  elevated  ideas  should 
be  all  expressed  in  our  simplest  vocabulary.  Certainly 
it  is  true  that  the  learned  vocabulary  of  big  words  is  a 
dangerous  instrument  for  the  inexperienced  writer  to 
work  with,  and  of  these  dangers  we  shall  have  more  to 
say  later.  But  properly  managed,  the  learned  and  high- 
sounding  Latinized  vocabulary  serves  a  very  useful  pur- 
pose. For  one  thing,  it  enables  the  writer  to  give 
variety  to  the  cadence  of  his  phrasing.  Long  words 
may  vary  and  alternate  with  short  ones,  according  as 
the  thought  or  mood  of  a  passage  changes.  Certain 
effects  of  dignity  and  stateliness  can  be  attained  in  style 
only  by  the  judicious  use  of  words  which  by  their  mere 
bulk  and  volume  of  sound  are  stately  and  dignified,  and 
such  words,  it  generally  happens,  are  of  Latin  origin. 
The  language  is  like  a  great  organ,  and  the  various 
classes  of  words  are  like  its  stops.  The  more  stops,  that 
is,  the  greater  the  number  of  kinds  of  words,  the  more 
varied  and  the  richer  are  the  effects  which  can  be  pro- 
duced by  the  artist  who  is  capable  of  playing  upon  the 
language. 

An  author  who  was  specially  successful  in  his  use 
of  the  high-sounding  word,  of  the  rotund,  oratorical 
style,  was  Sir  Thomas  Browne.  His  writings  have  the 
dignity  and  the  stately  eloquence  that  one  associates 
with  the  monumental  classic  style.  In  illustration,  a 
single  sentence  may  be  quoted  from  his  Hydriotaphia,  or 
Urne-Buriall,  the  first  edition  of  which  appeared  in 
1658.  He  is  discussing  the  comparative  advantages  of 
burning  and  of  burying  as  a  means  of  disposing  of  the 


ENGLISH    WORDS  277 

dead,  and  says  :  "  Some  being  of  the  opinion  of  Thales, 
that  water  was  the  original  of  all  things,  thought  it  most 
equal  to  submit  unto  the  principle  of  putrefaction,  and 
conclude  in  a  moist  relentment."  An  illustration  of 
somewhat  unpleasant  subject-matter  was  chosen  to  show 
how  the  author's  style  rises  superior  to  his  subject.  "  To 
submit  unto  the  principle  of  putrefaction,"  and  "  to  con- 
clude in  a  moist  relentment "  almost  reconcile  one  to  the 
thought  of  mortal  decay.  The  expression,  it  must  be 
confessed,  is  somewhat  remote  from  the  fact,  and  one  is 
a  little  inclined  to  forget  the  matter  of  the  sentence  in 
dwelling  on  the  cadence  of  its  phrasing.  Indeed  the 
same  question  that  troubled  the  minds  of  the  conserva- 
tive Renascence  critics  of  English  arises  now  in  consid- 
ering the  style  of  Sir  Thomas  Browne  and  is  continually 
arising  in  the  consideration  of  Modern  English  style. 
English  is  always  in  danger  of  falling  into  a  toploftical 
manner  of  expression  which  soon  degenerates  into  empty 
mannerism.  Perhaps  it  is  not  necessary  to  point  out 
the  fascination  which  the  "  grand  style  "  often  has  for  the 
unskilled  writer.  We  may  admire  it  in  the  pages  of  a 
master  of  the  method,  like  Sir  Thomas  Browne,  without 
setting  it  up  as  a  general  model  of  English  style. 

But  the  long  words  of  the  vocabulary  lend  themselves 
to  other  effects  than  those  which  are  dignified  and 
stately.  By  contrast  with  the  simple  vocabulary,  the 
long  wbrd  playfully  used  often  has  humorous  value. 
This  sort  of  humor,  polysyllabic  humor  as  it  may  be 
called,  also  has  its  dangers :  it  is  an  easy  trick,  and,  like 
most  easy  tricks,  tends  to  be  overworked.  Always  to 
speak  of  one's  house  as  "  a  domicile,"  or  of  a  horse  as 
"an  equine  quadruped,"  is  as  cheap  and  tiresome  a 


278  MODERN   ENGLISH 

form  of  humor  as  constant  punning.  Sparingly  used, 
however,  the  polysyllable  is  not  without  a  touch  of 
quaintness  and  charm.  Charles  Lamb  is  fond  of  this 
humorous  device,  tho  he  also  is  occasionally  guilty  of 
a  too  abundant  use  of  it.  As  an  instance  of  his  more 
successful  manner,  we  may  quote  the  following  para- 
graph from  the  opening  of  his  essay  on  The  Praise  of 
Chimney  Sweeps :  "  I  like  to  meet  a  sweep  —  understand 
me  —  not  a  grown  sweeper  —  old  chimney-sweepers  are 
by  no  means  attractive  — but  one  of  these  tender  novices, 
blooming  through  their  first  nigritude,  the  maternal 
washings  not  quite  effaced  from  the  cheek  —  such  as 
come  forth  with  the  dawn,  or  somewhat  earlier,  with 
their  little  professional  notes  sounding  like  the  peep-peep 
of  a  young  sparrow ;  or  liker  to  the  matin  lark  should 
I  pronounce  them,  in  their  aerial  ascents  not  seldom 
anticipating  the  sunrise  ?  " 

By  restating  the  ideas  of  this  sentence  in  short  words 
of  native  origin,  one  sees  how  much  the  flavor  of  it  is 
dependent  on  just  the  words  which  Lamb  has  chosen. 
In  a  simple  native  vocabulary  one  would  miss  the  oc- 
casional playful  contrast  between  the  loftiness  of  the 
diction  and  the  lowliness  of  the  subject,  which  lends  it 
its  chief  charm. 

Another  advantage  which  the  language  has  in  its  learned 
borrowed  words  consists  in  the  fact  that  it  can  thus  give 
to  scientific  objects  and  ideas  names  which  have  not  been 
traditionally  attached  to  other  objects  and  ideas,  and 
which  have  not  acquired  through  long  use  a  group  of 
connotations  and  meanings  which  the  scientific  word 
should  not  have.  Thus,  the  word  zoology r,  a  compound 
word  of  Greek  origin,  according  to  the  meaning  of  its 


ENGLISH  WORDS  279 

elements  might  be  translated  literally  as  "  life-lore,"  a 
meaning  which  is  decidedly  too  wide  for  zoology,  that 
science  being  concerned  only  with  the  forms  of  animal 
life.  So  also  "  star-lore  "  as  a  name  for  astronomy  is  not 
a  good  name,  since  it  connotes  a  great  many  popular 
notions  and  astrological  superstitions  that  astronomy  is 
not  concerned  with.  The  word  inoculate  means  a  very 
definite  process  of  modern  medicine.  Etymologically  it 
comes  from  Latin  w-,  the  preposition,  compounded  with 
the  noun  oculm,  "  eye,"  also  "  bud  of  a  plant."  Its 
original  meaning  in  English  was  to  graft  by  budding, 
from  which  the  meaning  of  imparting  the  germs  of  a 
disease  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  disease  is  a 
metaphorical  derivation.  In  Modern  English,  however, 
inoculate  is  a  word  with  a  single,  specific  value,  the  best 
kind  of  word  that  science  could  have.  And  so  often  it 
would  be  extremely  difficult  to  find  simple  native  words 
as  names  for  scientific  ideas  that  would  not  connote  either 
more  or  less  than  it  was  necessary  to  express. 

Borrowed  words,  being  without  the  connotations  which 
come  of  long  and  familiar  use,  can  often  be  employed  for 
new  ideas  with  less  danger  of  prejudice  or  misunderstand- 
ing than  the  native  words  of  the  vocabulary.  Thus  it  is 
an  advantage  to  have  the  word  "conductor"  to  name 
the  person  in  command  of  a  train,  the  corresponding 
English  word  "leader"  not  answering  the  purpose,  and 
"  captain  "  being  limited  to  the  commander  of  a  ship.  So 
also  we  may  speak  of  a  u  regent "  of  a  university,  for 
example,  whereas  the  word  "  ruler  "  would  imply  a  kind 
of  authority  not  intended.  Manufacturers  of  commer- 
cial products  have  seen  the  value  of  this  use  of  foreign 
words,  and  frequently  avoid  prejudice  against  their  wares 


280  MODERN   ENGLISH 

merely  by  giving  strange  names  for  familiar  objects.  Thus 
the  product  known  as  "  cottolene,"  a  substitute  for  lard 
made  from  the  cotton  seed,  means  simple  "cotton  oil." 
Other  examples  taken  from  the  names  of  food-stuffs  are 
cited  above.  Sometimes,  however,  the  use  of  a  big  word 
for  a  familiar  idea  or  object  is  due  merely  to  false  modesty 
or  affectation,  as  when  one  speaks  of  a  fee  as  an  honora- 
rium, or  of  wages  as  salary  or  emolument.  Just  when 
wages  reach  the  dignity  of  being  properly  called  salary  is 
doubtless  a  matter  of  opinion ;  but  each  word  has  its 
proper  place,  and  the  fault  of  using  either  for  the  other  is 
equally  great.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  speak  of  a  barber 
as  a  "  tonsorial  artist."  And  all  perhaps  except  the  pro- 
prietor will  agree  that  the  sign  "  Horse-shoeing  Parlours," 
which  for  many  years  adorned  the  window  of  a  New 
York  blacksmith's  shop,  is  a  little  more  elegant  than  the 
occasion  required. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  certain  that  the  large  Latin 
element  in  the  English  vocabulary  is  the  source  of  some 
danger  and  often  of  weakness  in  the  use  of  the  English 
language.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  the  danger  of  losing 
the  sense  of  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of 
words.  Borrowed  words  often  do  not  have  the  familiar 
associations,  the  certainty  of  effect,  and  the  precision 
and  exactness  of  meaning  which  native  words  are  likely 
to  have.1  Often  they  seem  not  to  be  completely  assimi- 

1  English  in  this  respect  does  not  compare  favorably  with  German. 
"  There  is  nothing  which  cannot  be  expressed  in  German  by  a  native  word, 
homely,  picturesque,  appealing  straight  to  the  intelligence  alike  of  learned 
and  unlearned.  The  phraseology  of  abstract  thought  is  concrete  here 
[i.  e.,  in  German]  ;  it  is  also  of  native  growth,  not  imported  from  Greek  or 
Latin.  Instead  of  '  incarnation,'  Germans  speak  of  Fleischwerden  or  Ver- 
fleischung.  Instead  of  'relation/  'definition,'  they  use  Verhttltniss, 
Bestimmung;  instead  of  '  concept/  Begriff.  Some  of  their  philosophical  ex- 


ENGLISH   WORDS  281 

lated,  and  are  thus  used  with  a  looseness  and  vagueness 
not  characteristic  of  the  native  words.  A  familiar  in- 
stance is  the  word  aggravate  (from  Latin  ad  and  gravis), 
which  etymologically  and  in  good  literary  use  means 
"to  make  worse,"  but  which  colloquially,  and  perhaps 
carelessly,  tends  to  be  used,  especially  in  the  form  ag- 
gravating, in  the  vaguer  and  more  general  sense  of 
"annoy."  Likewise,  incisive  is  a  word  which  should 
have  a  clear  and  specific  meaning,  but  which  again  is 
often  used  in  such  general  senses  as  "  correct,"  "  appro- 
priate," "  to  the  point."  Other  instances  are  predicament, 
used  as  the  equivalent  of  "  plight "  ;  oblivious,  strictly 
"  forgetful,"  used  in  the  sense  of  "  unobservant "  or 
"  disregardful  of,"  as  in  "  oblivious  of  his  presence," 
meaning  "  not  having  observed  his  presence  "  (Thomas 
Nelson  Page),  or  "  oblivious  to  the  cold  wind  "  (Saturday 
Evening  Post).  The  word  stupendous  is  often  used  as 
though  it  meant  simply  "  large "  ;  and  unique,  which 
strictly  should  mean  "  single,"  "the  only  one  of  its 
kind,"  frequently  degenerates  into  vague  meanings  like 
"strange,"  "excellent,"  or  "  ingenious,"  as  in  "quite  a 
unique  collection  of  books  "  (Pall  Mall  Gazette)  ;  "  the 

church   gave  a  unique  entertainment  last  night.'* 

The  word  balance  becomes  equivalent  to  "  remainder  "  in 
"  After  August  you  may  expect  cool  weather  for  the 
balance  of  the  Summer."  The  general  sense  of  "  severe  " 


pressions,  such,  for  instance,  as  Weltanschauung  [literally  world  beholding, 
i.  e.,  philosophy  of  life],  display  an  inimitable  aptitude.  Even  the  terms 
of  physical  science  are  not  remote  from  common  life.  Schwefelsaure  ex- 
plains itself  more  easily  than  Acidus  Sulphuricus  [i.  e.,  sulphuric  acid]." 
Symonds,  Essays,  Speculative  and  Suggestive,  'V  ol.  I,  p.  313.  For  further 
discussion  of  the  same  point,  see  Educational  Review.  March,  1907,  pp. 
231-233. 


282  MODERN  ENGLISH 

is  often  given  to  the  word  exemplary,  as  in  "  Their  pun- 
ishment was  swift  and  exemplary  "  ;  in  careful  use,  how- 
ever, the  word  means  4'  exemplifying,"  "  furnishing  an 
example."  So  also  the  word  condign,  which  should  mean 
u  deserved,"  "  merited,"  is  often  used  in  vague  senses  of 
"  heavy,"  "  severe,"  as  in  "  They  visited  him  with  condign 
punishment."  An  educated  person,  one  of  the  editors  of  a 
large  city  newspaper,  once  remarked  to  the  author  that  he 
was  "  impervious  to  riding  backwards  in  trains,"  meaning 
that  he  was  not  unpleasantly  affected  by  it.  The  poster 
of  a  land-improvement  company  advertised  the  "  sale  of 
well-situated  and  eligible  properties."  The  use  of  primi- 
tive in  the  sense  merely  of  "  early,"  and  of  universal  in 
the  sense  of  "  common  "  or  "  widespread,"  is  often  found 
even  in  somewhat  scholarly  writing.  More  popular  is 
the  usage  of  the  man  who  "  wishes  to  relate  a  circum- 
stance that  occurred,"  meaning  he  wishes  to  tell  some- 
thing that  happened.  In  his  next  sentence  this  man 
would  probably  say  that  this  "circumstance"  was 
"  phenomenal,"  when  he  meant  only  that  it  was  strange 
or  remarkable.  The  word  temperate  has  practically 
lost  its  proper  meaning  in  the  phrase  "strictly  tem- 
perate," used  of  a  person  who  is  a  total  abstainer.  Sev- 
eral years  ago  the  general  post-office  sent  out  a  placard 
for  display  in  local  post-offices,  stating  that  registered 
letters  "  require  the  name  of  the  sender  to  be  endorsed 
on  the  face  of  the  envelope."1  Literally,  to  endorse 
a  thing  on  its  face  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  The 
word  in  the  placard  had  weakened  to  the  meaning  merely 
"  to  write  "  or  "  inscribe," 

There  is,  therefore,  always  this  danger  of  using  more 

1  Tucker,  Our  Common  Speech,  p.  30. 


ENGLISH    WORDS  283 

or  less  unfamiliar  words  in  vague  and  indefinite  senses 
when  they  should  have,  and  in  the  best  use  of  the  lan- 
guage do  have,  definite  and  specific  senses,  the  danger  of 
thinking  and  speaking  in  loose  and  general  terms  instead 
of  in  the  exactly  fitting  terms.  Closely  related  to  this  is 
an  abuse  of  the  language  already  mentioned  which  the  - 
young  writer  is  likely  to  be  guilty  of,  that  is,  the  use  of 
words  for  themselves  alone.  There  are  so  many  "  fine  " 
words,  so  many  learned  words,  in  the  English  vocabulary, 
that  one  is  sometimes  in  danger  of  becoming  enamored 
of  words  for  their  own  sake,  of  using  them  because  they 
sound  well,  even  tho  they  mean  nothing,  or  are  en- 
tirely inappropriate  to  what  one  is  speaking  or  writing 
about.  This  use  of  big  words  is  given  in  works  on 
composition  the  ironical  name  of  "  fine  writing."  Sty- 
listically the  use  of  "  fine  "  words  is  bad  English  because 
it  takes  words  which  have  their  right  and  appropriate 
places  and  uses  them  where  they  do  not  belong.  Such 
methods  are  comparable  to  those  of  a  painter  who  should 
try  to  paint  a  pink  flower  by  using  his  most  brilliant 
crimson  color.  He  not  only  does  not  paint  his  pink 
flower,  but  he  has  no  color  left  when  he  wishes  to  pro- 
duce his  strongest  effects.  As  has  been  stated,  it  is 
usually  the  inexperienced  writer  who  is  liable  to  fall  into 
this  error,  the  best  corrective  of  which  is  to  observe  the 
ineffectiveness  of  such  English  upon  any  reader  whose 
good  opinion  is  worth  having.  To  persist  in  the  use  of 
"fine"  words  out  of  their  proper  places  is  to  convict 
one's  self  of  insensibility  to  the  effects  produced  by  lan- 
guage, and  one  who  is  always  striving  to  be  fine  succeeds 
only  in  being  cheap,  tawdry,  and  vulgar. 

To  know  when  not  to  use  the  big  word  in  English  is, 


284  MODERN   ENGLISH 

therefore,  one  of  the  best  safeguards  a  writer  can  have. 
Indeed,  it  may  be  set  down  as  a  rule :  Never  use  a  long 
word  when  a  shorter  one  will  do  as  well.  The  opposite 
tendency,  that  is,  to  use  as  many  and  as  long  words  as 
you  can,  has  been  well  described  by  the  novelist  Barrie 
in  his  satire  on  what  he  calls  "  newspaper  English."  A 
candidate  is  supposed  to  be  up  for  an  examination  in 
journalism,  and  one  of  the  questions  asked  is,  how  to 
translate  the  following  sentence  into  "  newspaper  Eng- 
lish " :  "  The  house  was  soon  on  fire ;  much  sympathy  is 
expressed  with  the  sufferers."  The  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion is  this :  "  In  a  moment  the  edifice  was  enveloped  in 
shooting  tongues  of  flame :  the  appalling  catastrophe  has 
plunged  the  whole  street  into  the  gloom  of  night."1 
Lowell,  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Second  Series  of 
Biglow  Papers  has  a  similar  set  of  phrases,  one  being 
of  the  old  style  and  the  other  of  the  new  style  of  news- 
paper-writing. Thus  the  old  style  phrase,  "A  great 
crowd  came  to  see,"  becomes  in  the  new  style,  "A  vast 
concourse  was  assembled  to  witness."  "Man  fell"  is 
translated  in  the  new  style  into  "Individual  was  pre- 
cipitated"; and  "Sent  for  the  doctor"  becomes  "Called 
into  requisition  the  services  of  the  family  physician." 
For  the  purposes  of  satire,  Barrie  and  Lowell  have  of 
course  given  somewhat  exaggerated,  tho  none  the  less 
instructive,  examples  of  "fine  writing."  But  "newspa- 
per English  "  is  merely  our  modern  cant  term  for  a  tend- 
ency of  English  style  that  has  been  present  ever  since 
the  days  of  Caxton.  The  English  of  newspapers  is  not 
always  bad.  Indeed,  a  fair  case  may  be  made  for  the 
opinion  that  it  is  more  generally  good  than  bad.  The 

l  J.  M.  Barrie,  When  a  Man  's  Single. 


ENGLISH   WORDS  285 

English  of  a  reputable  city  paper  is  usually  direct, 
straightforward,  standing  in  close  relation  to  the  fact 
which  it  narrates.  Through  the  inexperience  of  edi- 
tors and  reporters  the  writing  of  the  newspapers  may 
often  be  bombastic  and  otherwise  inadequate;  but  these 
faults  are  of  course  not  greater  than  that  of  the  second- 
rate  author  whose  style  is  "  literary  "  at  the  expense  of 
directness  and  sincerity.  That  the  problem  of  style  in 
English  with  respect  to  the  Latinized  vocabulary  is  es- 
sentially the  same,  whether  we  look  at  it  from  the  point 
of  view  of  "  newspaper  English,"  of  literary  style,  or  of 
conversation,  is  indicated  by  the  well-known  anecdote  of 
Dr.  Johnson,  recorded  by  Boswell.  The  little  story 
shows  clearly  the  vicious  tendency  of  mind  which  every 
English  writer  has  to  struggle  against.  Dr.  Johnson, 
according  to  Boswell,  was  speaking  of  Buckingham's 
satirical  play,  The  Rehearsal,  and  said,  "  It  has  not  wit 
enough  to  keep  it  sweet,"  adding  after  a  moment's  re- 
flection, "  It  has  not  vitality  enough  to  preserve  it  from 
putrefaction." 


VII 

ENGLISH   GRAMMAR 

1.  Modern  English  Grammar.  The  word  gram- 
mar, as  it  is  understood  by  the  scientific  student  of 
language,  is  a  term  of  wide  inclusion.  The  grammar 
of  a  language,  in  the  broadest  sense,  includes  a  discus- 
sion of  all  the  facts  of  the  language,  —  sounds,  inflections, 
syntax,  excepting  only  vocabulary.  Indeed,  many  sci- 
entific grammars  never  get  beyond  the  consideration  of 
sounds  and  inflections.  There  is,  however,  a  less  general 
and  more  popular  sense  of  the  word  grammar,  which  is 
the  meaning  intended  in  its  use  in  the  present  chapter. 
This  is  a  use  of  the  word  which  makes  it  practically 
equivalent  in  meaning  to  correct  syntax.  We  say  a 
person  speaks  grammatically  when  he  uses  such  syntax 
as  is  accepted  as  standard  use,  and  he  speaks  ungram- 
matically when  he  does  violence  to  standard  custom. 

In  modern  times  the  tendency  of  grammar  in  this 
sense  has  been  towards  an  'increasing  rigidity  in  the 
grammatical  system.  This  applies  both  to  written  and 
to  spoken  English.  In  both,  the  limits  of  permissible 
variation  in  usage  are  narrower  to-day  than  they  ever 
have  been  before.  The  custom  of  the  language  has 
tended  to  establish  one  "  standard  "  or  "  correct "  form 
for  each  grammatical  category,  and  then  to  adhere  to 
this  form.  The  difference  between  present  and  earlier 
usage  can  be  seen  by  comparing  Modern  English  with 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  287 

the  English  of  Shakspere.  In  Modern  English  we  have, 
for  example,  only  one  form  for  the  third  plural  present 
of  verbs.  Shakspere,  however,  tho  he  generally  used 
what  we  now  regard  as  the  standard  form,  could  also  form 
plurals  in  -«,  as  in  Tempest,  V,  i,  16 :  "  His  tears  runs 
down  his  beard."  He  also  formed  third  plurals  in  -en, 
as  in  Midsummer-Night's  Dream,  II,  i,  56  : 

And  then  the  whole  quire  hold  their  hips  and  laugh, 
And  waxen  in  their  mirth. 

And  occasionally  we  find  third  plurals  in  -th.  Shak- 
apere  thus  had  four  ways  of  forming  his  third  plurals, 
and  these  various  forms  he  was  at  liberty  to  choose 
from  apparently  much  as  the  need  of  the  moment  im- 
pelled him.  A  similar  freedom  exists  with  respect  to 
many  other  grammatical  categories.  These  various 
forms  are  generally  historical,  but  where  later  English 
has  chosen  one  of  a  number  of  historical  forms  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  rest,  earlier  English  frequently  em- 
ploys several  different  forms  side  by  side.1  Sometimes 
the  discarded  earlier  form  of  expression  persists  in 
Modern  English,  but  is  regarded  as  characteristic  of 
the  popular  or  vulgar  speech.  Thus  the  double  com- 
parative is  now  frequently  heard  in  the  speech  of  the 
uneducated  and  of  children;  in  Shakspere,  as  in  Mer- 
chant of  Venice,  IV,  i,  251,  "  How  much  more  elder 
art  thou  than  thy  looks,"  it  was  a  construction  in  as 
good  standing  as  our  so-called  "correct"  single  com- 
parative. In  vulgar  English  we  also  have  the  verb 
learn  used  transitively.  In  Elizabethan  English  learn 

1  Attention  has  been  called  above  (see  pp.  89  ff.)  to  the  earlier  use  of 
the  two  forms  of  the  pronoun  thou  and  you,  Modern  English  having  limited 
itself,  to  its  own  disadvantage,  almost  entirely  to  the  second  form. 


288  MODERN  ENGLISH 

could  be  either  intransitive  or  transitive,  an  illustration 
of  the  latter  use  being  found  in  the  King  James  transla- 
tion of  the  Bible,  Psalm  cxix,  66 :  "  O  learn  me  true 
understanding  and  knowledge." 

It  is  interesting,  also,  to  compare  the  standards  of 
spoken  English  of  earlier  periods  with  that  of  Modern 
English.  For  this  purpose  the  comedies  of  the  seven- 
teenth and  early  eighteenth  centuries  offer  abundant 
material.  The  dialog  in  these  comedies  is  very  real- 
istic, coming  as  near  to  being  an  actual  transcript  of 
the  speech  and  manners  of  its  times  as  English  litera- 
ture has  ever  done.  Perhaps,  also,  no  later  period  of 
English  literature  has  equaled  this  dialog  in  its  vi- 
vacity, its  ease,  and  its  truthfulness.  Yet  the  characters, 
even  when  we  use  for  illustration  only  such  as  represent 
educated  and  cultivated  persons,  are  very  free  indeed  in 
their  treatment  of  the  King's  English.  In  the  works  of 
Sir  George  Etherege  occur  such  constructions  as  the 
following:  'Tis  them ;  It  must  be  them ;  It  may  be  him  ; 
let  you  and  I,  and  let  thee  and  I;  all  you  'II  ha'  me,  for 
"  all  you  will  have  me."  *  In  Farquhar's  Beaux  Strate- 
gem,  Act  II,  we  have  the  following :  Then  I,  Sir,  tips 
me  the  Verger  with  half  a  crown.  Frequently  the  same 
author  uses  abbreviations  like  a'n't  we,  or  a'n't  I,  for 
the  full  forms  are  not  we  and  am  not  L  The  full  form 
for  /  have  not  is  contracted  into  /  han't.  A  few  further 
illustrations  may  be  cited  from  the  comedies  of  Van- 
brugh.  In  a  passage  of  serious  prose,  one  of  his  pref- 
aces,2 we  find  forms  like  the  following:  they'll,  I'm, 

*  The  Works  of  Sir  George  Etherege,  ed.  A.  Wilson  Verity,  London, 
1888. 

*  Vanbrugh,  ed.  W.  C.  Wood,  Vol.  I,  pp.  7-9. 


ENGLISH  GRAMMAR  289 

9t  was,  find  'em.  These,  of  course,  are  common  enough 
in  Modern  English  colloquial  speech,  but  are  now  prac- 
tically never. used  in  written  style.  In  the  dialog  of 
the  comedies  themselves  the  following  may  be  noted: 
'  Tis  well,  admit  'em  ;  a  purpose,  for  "  on  purpose  "  ;  on  't, 
for  "  on  it " ;  These  shoes  an't  ugly,  but  they  don't  jit 
me  ;  I  han't,  for  "  I  have  n't " ;  don't  as  third  singular 
present,  frequently ;  'twixt  you  and  I;  in  these  kind  of 
matters  ;  ben't,  for  "  be  not " ;  by  who,  for  "  by  whom  "  ; 
sha't,  for  "  shalt " ;  blow'd,  for  the  preterite  of  the  verb ; 
with  my  Lord  Rake  and  1 ;  but  was  ye  never  in  love, 
sir?  nor  is  it  me  he  exposes.  Many  of  these  usages  are 
such  as  exist  to-day  in  the  popular  speech.  They  are 
not  cited  here  as  indicating  a  low  general  tone  of  cul- 
ture in  the  comedies  from  which  they  are  taken.  On 
the  contrary,  conversation  was  never  more  brisk  and 
effective  than  it  is  in  these  comedies;  wit  and  satire 
have  never  been  expressed  more  certainly  than  here. 
The  examples  have  been  cited  merely  to  show  the 
change  which  has  come  over  English  speech.  Conver- 
sation now  tends  to  be  more  precise  and  formal.  Mere 
correctness  or  regularity  counts  with  many  people  for 
more  than  it  formerly  did.  That  there  has  been,  how- 
ever, a  corresponding  gain  in  vivacity,  lightness,  and 
spontaneity,  one  would  hesitate  to  say. 

2.  Inflectional  Change.  With  the  setting  up  of  a 
hard  and  fast  rigid  system  of  grammar,  naturally  the 
tendencies  towards  inflectional  change,  which  are  so 
characteristic  of  earlier  periods  of  English,  have  been 
almost  completely  checked.  The  most  important  con- 
temporary change  is  that  which  is  affecting  the  sub- 
junctive mood.  Practically,  the  only  construction  in 

19 


290  MODERN   ENGLISH 

Modern  English  in  which  the  subjunctive  is  in  living, 
natural  use,  is  in  the  condition  contrary  to  fact,  "  If  I 
were  you,  I  shouldn't  do  it."  Elsewhere,  altho  it 
may  still  be  emplo}^ed  with  some  subtle  distinctions  of 
thought,  there  is  always  a  trace  of  consciousness  in  its 
use;  it  has  more  or  less  literary  or  archaic  or  affected 
flavor.  It  seems  likely,  therefore,  with  the  continuance 
of  the  present  tendencies,  that  the  subjunctive  as  a  dis- 
tinctive inflectional  form  will  disappear,  except,  perhaps, 
in  the  one  construction  noted.  Even  here,  however,  the 
indicative  form  is  used  in  a  surprisingly  large  number  of 
instances  in  good  modern  authors.  A  few  examples  may 
be  cited :  If  I  was  Cadogan,  I  would  have  a  peerage  for 
this  day's  work  (Thackeray) ;  It  poured  all  night,  as  if 
the  sky  was  coming  down  (Matthew  Arnold) ;  I  think 
if  I  was  beginning  again,  I  should  begin  with  a  serious 
study  of  Paracelsus  (Life  and  Letters  of  Dean  Church) ; 
I  should  feel  more  sympathy  with  Germany  if  it  was 
only  a  question  of  its  being  welded  together  (ibid.).1 
Such  usages,  which  seem  indeed  perfectly  natural,  may 
make  one  doubt  whether  the  subjunctive  will  be  able  to 
maintain  itself  even  in  this  last  stronghold  of  the  condi- 
tion contrary  to  fact.  The  feeling  for  the  natural  use  of 
the  subjunctive  being  thus  largely  obscured  or  lost,  one 
finds  it  occasionally  where  it  is  appropriate  by  no  test 
either  of  past  or  present  use,  as  in  the  following :  "  Her- 
rick,  devout  worshipper  of  his  pagan  saint  though  he 
were,  has  left  hardly  a  phrase  which  is  not  sweet  with 
his  own  dainty  country  melody"  (B.  Wendell,  The 
Temper  of  the  Seventeenth  Century,  p.  149).  The  writer 

1  See  Smith,  "  The  Indicative  in  an  Unreal  Condition,"  Modern  Philol 
ogy,  V,  361-364  (January,  1908),  for  these  and  numerous  other  examples. 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  291 

of  this  sentence  did  not  mean  to  say  that  Herrick  was 
not  a  worshiper  of  his  pagan  saint ;  apparently  he  uses 
the  subjunctive  here  as  result  of  that  confusion  of  mind 
which  often  arises  from  a  vague  consciousness  of  some- 
thing to  be  desired  or  avoided,  and  which  often  as  not 
leads  one  to  choose  the  tiling  to  be  avoided. 

Occasional  variation  in  the  principal  parts  of  verbs  is 
also  to  be  observed.  The  principal  parts  of  get  are  get, 
got,  got,  or  gotten.  Neither  got  nor  gotten  is  historically 
the  correct  form  for  the  past  participle,  which  should  be 
geten.  But  the  vowels  of  the  past  participle  and  of  the 
past  tense,  as  frequently  happened,  have  been  leveled 
under  one  form  ;  and  in  the  case  of  got  as  past  participle, 
the  leveling  has  been  extended  to  the  -  en  ending.  The 
form  gotten  is  often  criticised  as  an  Americanism,  and 
it  is  undoubtedly  a  more  general  American  use  than  Brit- 
ish. The  authentic  story  is  told  of  an  American  who 
sent  a  telegram  to  a  friend  saying  that  he  had  gotten 
tickets  for  the  theater  that  night,  which  the  British 
operator  transmitted  "  Have  got  ten  tickets  for  the 
theater  to-night,"  to  the  confusion  of  the  ten  when  they 
came  to  occupy  two  seats.  But  it  has  already  been 
pointed  out  that  the  -en  ending  is  historically  correct. 
It  is  supported,  moreover,  by  the  forms  forgotten,  be- 
gotten,  ill-gotten,  etc.  Unless  one  arbitrarily  elevates 
one  section  of  English  usage  to  the  position  of  standard, 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  the  form  gotten  should 
not  be  allowed  to  exist.  It  is  as  natural  in  that  word  as 
are  such  past  participles  as  driven,  ridden,  written,  etc. 
There  are  some  constructions,  however,  in  which  the 
form  got  is  the  only  one  in  customary  use.  We  say  "  I  Ve 
got  to  go,"  never  "  I  Ve  gotten  to  go,"  as  the  British 


292  MODERN  ENGLISH 

critic  sometimes  asserts.  There  is  of  course  no  reason 
why  got  should  not  be  used  as  the  past  participle  of  the 
verb  when  the  natural  custom  of  the  language  calls  for 
it  —  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  gotten. 

The  past  participle  of  the  verb  drink  is  variously  given 
as  drank  and  drunk.  Historically  drunk  is  the  better 
form,  following  the  class  of  begin,  began,  begun;  sing, 
sang,  sung;  run,  ran,  run,  and  other  verbs.  The  form 
drunk,  however,  seems  to  be  objected  to  because  it  sug- 
gests the  adjective  use  of  the  word.  In  spite  of  this,  the 
weight  of  usage  still  favors  the  form  drunk  as  past  parti- 
ciple. Altho  there  is  considerable  uncertainty  in  the 
popular  speech  with  respect  to  the  forms  of  a  number 
of  past  tenses,  the  past  of  blow  being  often  made  blowed, 
of  begin  being  made  begun,  of  catch  being  made  catched, 
etc.,  such  forms  are  now  considered  as  gross  errors  in 
the  standard  or  correct  speech.  Where  formerly  there 
was  liberty  of  choice,  as,  for  example,  began  or  begun, 
for  the  past  tense  of  begin,  the  custom  of  standard 
Modern  English  has  recognized  only  one  correct  form. 
Attention  may  be  called,  however,  to  the  fact  that  the 
strict  rule  of  the  grammarians  is  not  always  followed  in 
practice  by  good  speakers  and  writers.  The  past  tense 
of  the  verb  lie  is  conventionally  lay  ;  but  the  form  laid 
is  also  in  very  general  use,  especially  among  persons  not 
held  in  restraint  by  academic  traditions.  An  illustration 
may  be  cited :  "  Apparently  the  bear  laid  in  wait  beside 
the  game  trails,  along  which  the  deer  wandered'* 
(Roosevelt,  Hunting  the  Grisly,  p.  60).  The  same  di- 
versity of  use  exists  with  respect  to  the  past  tense  of 
dive  as  dived  or  dove.  The  former  is  the  conventionally 
"correct"  form,  but  the  latter,  following  the  analogy  of 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  298 

drive,  drove,  ride,  rode,  etc.,  is  a  natural  formation  and,  in 
spoken  use  at  least,  is  perhaps  more  frequently  heard 
than  the  former.  An  example  may  be  cited  from  the 
source  just  quoted :  "  The  little  animal  .  .  .  struck  out 
at  him  like  an  angry  cat,  dove  into  the  bushes,  and  was 
seen  no  more  "  (Roosevelt,  Hunting  the  Grisly,  p.  111). 
Modern  grammar  has  attempted  to  regulate  according 
to  a  strict  system  the  use  of  shall  and  will  in  future  and 
other  verb-phrases,  but  not  with  complete  success.  It  is 
not  the  present  writer's  intention  to  elaborate  a  detailed 
statement  of  the  rules  for  the  so-called  u  correct"  use  of 
these  words.  Many  such  have  been  given,  all  very  com- 
plicated, all  more  or  less  different,  and  all  colored  by  the 
theories  of  the  grammarian  or  rhetorician  from  whom 
they  have  proceeded.  Beyond  the  simple  rule  that  shall 
is  used,  according  to  the  theory  of  formal  grammar,  in 
the  first  person,  present  tense,  singular  and  plural,  for 
the  expression  of  simple  futurity,  and  will  in  the  second 
and  third  persons,  present  tense,  singular  and  plural,  for 
the  same  purpose,  and  that  should  and  would  are  respec- 
tively used  in  the  past  tense,  where  shall  and  will  are  used 
in  the  present,  it  is  not  necessary  to  go.  The  other  uses, 
for  example  will  in  the  first  person  and  shall  in  the 
second  and  third,  are  generally  unmistakably  deter- 
mined by  what  the  speaker  wishes  to  express  ;  they  are, 
moreover,  so  much  colored  by  the  mood  of  the  moment, 
the  distinctions  of  meaning  are  often  so  subtle,  that  it  is 
hardly  possible  to  reduce  these  to  a  practical  systematic 
statement,  even  if  it  were  desirable.  If  grammar  were, 
as  it  is  indeed  sometimes  assumed  to  be,  a  strictly  logical 
system  which  could  be  worked  out  in  the  quiet  of  the 
study,  and  then  imposed  upon  the  speakers  of  the 


294  MODERN  ENGLISH 

language,  the  elaboration  of  a  complicated  set  of  rules 
for  the  use  of  shall  and  will  might  be  worth  while.  But 
if  grammar  is,  as  we  assume  it  to  be,  the  statement  of 
the  usage  of  the  people  who  employ  the  language  in  the 
practical  and  effective  communication  of  thought,  any 
theoretical  dogmatizings  as  to  the  way  in  which  the 
words  shall  and  mil,  or  any  others,  ought  to  be  used, 
will  be  worse  than  useless.  If  we  observe  the  facts  of  the 
actual  usage  of  shall  and  will  in  speech  we  shall  find  the 
greatest  diversity.  We  shall  find  that  there  is  a  body  of 
careful  speakers  who,  either  through  persistent  instruc- 
tion in  formal  grammar  or  through  tradition  derived  from 
such  instruction,  tend  to  use  these  words  consistently  in 
their  conventionally  recognized  standard  forms.  In  cer- 
tain restricted  communities  the  standard  usage  has  thus 
become  to  a  considerable  extent  the  natural  popular 
custom.  With  the  great  majority  of  speakers,  however, 
with  those  who  must  be  counted  as  the  average,  intelli- 
gent population  of  the  country,  the  greatest  freedom 
prevails.  Indeed  one  may  say  that  where  a  strong  aca- 
demic standardizing  influence  has  not  been  brought  to 
bear,  I  will  is  as  generally  used  for  the  future  as  I  shall. 
In  the  face  of  these  facts  it  will  obviously  not  do  simply 
to  dismiss  I  will  as  "  vulgar  "  and  "  incorrect."  It  is  in- 
correct only  according  to  the  system  of  theoretical,  not 
of  practical,  grammar,  and  the  notion  of  its  incorrectness 
is  the  comparatively  recent  outgrowth  of  the  modern 
grammarian's  striving  after  a  rigid  regulation  of  the 
forms  of  speech.  The  simple  fact  seems  to  be  that  this  is 
one  of  the  instances  in  which  the  conventional  grammar, 
Laving  raised  a  special  and  not  universal  usage  to  the 
position  of  standard,  has  not  yet  succeeded  in  imposing 


ENGLISH  GRAMMAR  295 

its  rules  upon  the  speech  even  of  those  who  in  general 
follow  the  rules  of  conventional  or  standard  grammar. 
Whether  in  the  end  it  will  succeed  in  doing  so,  it  is  not 
easy  to  foresee.  At  present  it  seems  just  as  likely  that 
conventional  grammar  will  change  its  rules,  as  that  the 
great  body  of  those  who  now  use  the  "  incorrect "  forms 
will  change  their  practice.  It  is  especially  difficult  in 
this  instance  to  impose  the  standard  forms  on  colloquial 
speech,  because  through  the  habit  of  contraction  the  feel- 
ing for  all  distinction  between  the  forms  is  largely  ob- 
scured. Thus  1 7Z,  you  7Z,  he  'II  may  as  well  stand  for  1 
will,  etc.,  as  for  /  shall,  etc.  The  safest  guide,  therefore,  in 
the  use  of  shall  and  will  is,  as  ever,  the  guide  of  practical 
use.  In  practical  use  it  will  be  observed  that  in  formal, 
or  literary,  or  careful  English,  a  somewhat  definite 
a  cult "  has  grown  up  with  respect  to  the  use  of  these 
words  which  is  often  made,  by  the  followers  of  it,  the 
test  of  education,  even  of  refinement.  The  practical  ad- 
vantage of  knowing  the  rules  of  this  cult,  even  tho 
they  are  to  a  high  degree  artificial,  is  obvious.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  observation  of  the  widespread  popular 
usage  should  prevent  one  from  dogmatizing  too  posi- 
tively on  the  matter  of  correctness,  should  even  en- 
courage one  to  a  disagreement  with  the  strict  law  of 
the  formal  or  literary  usage.1 

1  The  usual  statement  of  the  grammarians  is  that  Scotch,  Irish,  and 
Americans  have  great  difficulty  in  acquiring  the  "  faultless  "  use  of  shall 
and  will.  This  means,  of  course,  that  Scotch,  Irish,  and  Americans  are  in- 
correct in  their  use  of  shall  and  will  only  because  they  are  measured  by  a 
British  standard.  By  that  standard  there  are  innumerable  ways  in  which 
American  usage  would  be  incorrect.  Any  one  interested  in  the  intricacies 
of  the  shall-and-^  ill  puzzle  may  consult  the  work  of  Dr.  Gerald  Molloy, 
The  Irish  Difficulty:  Shall  and  Will,  London,  1897,  in  which  the  author 
has  taken  two  hundred  pages  in  the  attempt  to  lay  bare  its  subtleties. 


296  MODERN  ENGLISH 

In  the  noun  the  only  inflectional  changes  of  impor- 
tance are  those  affecting  plurals  of  foreign  origin.  Here 
there  is  more  or  less  tendency  to  give  the  foreign  plurals 
the  form  of  English  words,  with  the  regular  -8,  -es  end- 
ing of  plurals.  Thus  the  plurals  of  index,  appendix,  focus, 
criterion,  may  be  either  the  foreign  forms  indices,  appen- 
dices, foci,  criteria,  or  better,  the  English  forms  indexes, 
appendixes, focuses,  criterions.  In  some  words,  like  gym- 
nasium, bandit,  cherub,  the  English  plurals  gymnasiums, 
bandits,  and  cherubs,  instead  of  gymnasia,  banditti,  and 
cherubim  (used  only  with  reference  to  the  Biblical  cheru- 
bim), are  the  only  ones  generally  used.  In  general  the 
tendency  to  substitute  English  for  foreign  plurals  is  one 
that  should  be  encouraged. 

In  the  instance  of  the  word  data,  a  Latin  plural  from 
a  little  used  singular  datum,  the  strong  popular  tend- 
ency is  to  take  the  word  as  a  singular.  This  tendency 
is  helped  by  the  fact  that  the  word  has  no  corresponding 
singular  in  general  use.  It  is  consequently  understood 
as  a  singular,  equivalent  in  meaning  to  "  information," 
as  in  the  sentence,  "  This  data  has  been  furnished  on 
the  understanding  that  it  will  not  be  published."  Al- 
tho  historically  inexact,  the  meaning  has  become  so 
general  among  those  who  employ  the  word  in  colloquial 
speech  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  an  established  usage. 
There  is  a  similar  tendency  to  use  the  plural  phenomena 
as  a  singular,  upon  which  a  new  plural,  phenomenas,  is 
then  formed.  This  tendency  is  held  well  in  check,  how- 
ever, by  the  learned  character  of  the  word  phenomenon ; 
as  it  becomes  more  popular,  an  increasing  use  of  phenom- 
ena as  a  singular  may  be  expected.1 

l  For  examples  of  phenomena  as  a  singular  and  phenomenas  as  plural,  see 
the  New  English  Dictionary  under  phenomenon.  On  the  general  topic,  see 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  297 

3.  Word  Order.  To  take  the  place  of  the  older 
method  of  binding  the  parts  of  the  sentence  together  by 
means  of  concord  in  inflectional  endings,  Modern  Eng- 
lish, having  lost  almost  all  its  inflectional  endings,  has 
been  compelled  to  substitute  instead  the  order  of  the 
words  in  the  sentence.  The  principles  determining  the 
word-order  of  Modern  English  are  two,  first,  that  ideas 
shall  be  expressed  in  the  order  of  their  logical  succes- 
sion ;  and  second,  that  related  ideas  shall  stand  in  close 
proximity  to  each  other.  By  the  first  principle  English 
has  settled  upon  an  almost  invariable  succession  of  the 
main  parts  in  the  structure  of  the  sentence.  The  main 
scheme  of  subject  +  verb  +  object  is  but  little  obscured 
by  the  insertion  of  modifying  parts  and  is  not  departed 
from  except  in  occasional  interrogative  and  exclamatory 
sentences.  In  colloquial  speech,  where  the  sentences 
are  naturally  shorter  and  simpler  than  in  the  more  con- 
scious literary  style,  the  simple  subject  +  verb  +  object 
structure  is  almost  the  only  one  employed.  It  is,  in 
fact,  the  only  one  that  can  be  employed;  for  even  in 
sentences  in  which  the  forms  of  the  words  indicate  their 
cases,  for  example,  I  saw  him  and  Him  saw  J,  that  rigid 
feeling  for  one  set  form  which  is  generally  characteristic 
of  Modern  English  permits  only  the  first,  or  natural, 
order  of  words. 

Professor  Matthews'  essay,  "  The  Naturalization  of  Foreign  Words,"  iu 
Parts  of  Speech,  pp.  165-183.  In  the  case  of  the  word  opera,  which  is  ety- 
mologically  the  plural  of  the  Latin  neuter  noun  opus,  both  the  popular  and 
the  standard  speech  accept  the  plural  form  as  singular,  forming  a  new 
plural  operas  after  the  common  analogy  of  English  words.  Other  in- 
stances of  a  similar  nature  are  the  word  differentia,  by  etymology  a  Latin 
singular  noun  of  the  first  declension,  but  often  used  as  a  plural  in  Eng- 
lish ;  insignia,  by  etymology  a  Latin  plural  but  used  in  English  indiffer- 
ently as  singular  or  plural ;  and  memoranda,  by  etymology  a  plural,  but 
often  used  as  a  singular. 


298  MODERN  ENGLISH 

The  second  principle  requiring  that  related  ideas  shall 
be  expressed  in  close  proximity  to  each  other  is  a  neces- 
sary result  of  the  importance  of  word-order  and  of  the 
leading  part  which  logic  of  situation  plays  in  Modern 
English.  If  the  interrelations  of  words  in  a  group  are 
to  be  determined  by  the  logic  of  the  ideas  which  they 
express,  naturally  those  ideas  which  are  closely  related 
must  be  brought  close  to  each  other  in  expression,  since 
the  logical  connection  would  otherwise  be  obscured  by 
the  introduction  of  extraneous  ideas.  We  thus  demand 
that  adjectives  stand  near  their  nouns,  usually  immedi- 
ately before  them ;  that  pronouns  stand  near  their  ante- 
cedents ;  that  adverbs  stand  close  to  their  modified 
words ;  and  that  verbs  stand  as  near  as  possible  to  the 
subjects  which  determine  their  number  and  person.  In 
the  ordering  of  phrases  and  clauses  also,  the  parts  must 
be  arranged  in  the  order  of  their  logical  sequence. 
Humorous  illustrations  (for  example,  "  Piano  to  rent  by 
a  lady  with  solid  mahogany  legs  ")  of  the  result  of  not 
heeding  this  rule  abound  in  the  grammars  and  rhetorics. 
But  the  fact  that  we  find  such  departures  from  a  fixed 
word-order  ludicrous,  even  when  the  logic  of  the  situa- 
tion makes  the  meaning  perfectly  clear,  as  in  the  above 
example,  shows  what  a  strong  hold  mere  proximity  and 
order  of  words  have  acquired  in  Modern  English  speech. 

This  feeling  for  order  of  words  in  some  instances 
comes  into  conflict  with  certain  traditional  grammatical 
rules.  A  stock  illustration  of  this  is  the  "  split  infini- 
tive." It  is  one  of  the  conservative  traditional  rules  of 
Modern  English  grammar  that  nothing  shall  stand  be- 
tween the  infinitive  and  its  sign  to.  But  it  is  difficult 
to  see  the  logical  justification  for  this  rule.  By  origin 


ENGLISH  GRAMMAR  299 

the  sign  to  is  a  preposition,  and  the  infinitive  which  fol- 
lows it  is  by  origin  a  verbal  noun,  which,  in  the  inflec- 
tional stage  of  the  language,  was  inflected,  like  any  other 
noun,  for  the  dative  case  after  its  preposition.  More- 
over, in  the  similar  construction  of  the  infinitive  in  -ing 
after  a  preposition,  no  question  is  ever  raised.  If  one 
may  say  "  His  plan  for  heavily  taxing  the  people  did  not 
meet  with  approval,"  why  may  not  one  as  well  say  "  It 
is  difficult  to  quickly  convert  these  securities  into  cash  "  ? 
Parallel  to  the  construction  of  the  split  infinitive  is  a 
sentence  like  the  following,  in  which  the  adverb  now  is 
made  part  of  the  prepositional  phrase  :  "  Such  a  periodi- 
cal is  what  I  have  been  seeking  diligently  for  now  many 
years. "  Indeed  the  principle  of  Modern  English  gram- 
mar that  a  modifying  word  shall  stand  as  near  to  the 
modified  word  as  possible  often  favors  the  insertion  of 
an  adverb  between  the  infinitive  and  its  sign.  Examples 
of  "  split  infinitive  "  can  of  course  be  found  in  the  writ- 
ing of  good  authors.  The  best  writers  have  always 
availed  themselves  of  the  privilege  of  placing  an  adverb 
before  the  infinitive  when  the  effective  exposition  of 
their  thought  required  it.  In  contemporary  speech  the 
"  split  infinitive  "  is  most  frequently  heard  in  the  usage 
of  those  speakers  who  give  much  attention  to  the  pre- 
cise definition  and  expression  of  their  thought,  especially 
lawyers,  but  who  are  not  too  much  restrained  by  the 
injunctions  of  the  academic  grammarian.  It  is  this  lat- 
ter who  is  mainly  responsible  for  the  rigid  prohibition 
against  the  use  of  the  u  split  infinitive."  Like  the  rule 
for  the  use  of  shall  and  will,  this  is  another  of  those 
traditional  and  theoretical  laws  which  has  acquired  re- 
spect and  authority  merely  because  it  has  been  so  often 


300  MODERN  ENGLISH 

dogmatically  stated.  By  the  test  of  actual  use  and  by 
the  test  of  the  feeling  for  the  Modern  English  idiom, 
the  "  split  infinitive  "  is  not  only  a  natural,  but  often  an 
admirable,  form  of  expression.1 

Word-order  sometimes  determines  case  contrary  to  the 
usual  rules  of  grammar.  Thus  from  early  times  the 
nominative  form  of  the  interrogative  pronoun,  instead 
of  the  grammatical  objective,  has  been  used  in  sentences 
like  "  Who  do  you  mean  ?  "  Shakspere,  in  Coriolanus, 
II,  i,  8,  writes :  Who  does  the  wolf  love  ?  where  the  con- 
text shows  that  Who  is  to  be  taken  as  the  object  of  love. 
Examples  are  frequent  in  colloquial  English  of  all  later 
periods.  According  to  the  rules  of  conventional  gram- 
mar, they  are  of  course  simply  "  incorrect."  They  vio- 
late the  rigid  rule  that  the  object  of  a  verb  must  be  in  the 
objective  case,  and  the  objective  case  of  who  is  whom.  But 
is  nothing  to  be  said  for  "  Who  do  you  mean  ?  "  The  jus- 
tification of  the  construction,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  explanation  of  its  origin.  The  type-form  of 
the  English  sentence,  as  has  been  stated,  follows  the 
scheme  of  subject  -f  verb  -f  object.  The  general  feeling 
thus  comes  to  be  that  the  word  which  precedes  the  verb 
is  the  subject  word,  or  at  least  the  subject  form,  and 
that  which  follows,  the  object ;  and  it  is  an  instinctive 
tendency  to  make  all  sentences  adapt  themselves  to  this 
typical  structure.  Naturally  enough,  therefore,  who, 
when  it  comes  first  in  interrogative  sentences,  is  given 
the  subject  form,  not  only  in  those  many  sentences  in 
which  it  is  the  grammatical  subject,  as  in  "  Who  called 

1  For  a  full  discussion,  with  numerous  examples,  of  the  split  infinitive, 
see  Lounsbury,  The  Standard  of  Usage  in  English,  pp.  240-268  ;  Hall, 
American  Journal  of  Philology  III,  No.  9,  1882;  Borst,  Enylische  Studien, 
XXXVII,  386-393." 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  301 

yesterday  ?  "  but  also  in  sentences  in  which  it  is  the 
grammatical  object,  as  in  "  Who  did  you  call  ?  "  Since 
this  latter  construction  follows  the  logical  tendency  of 
modern  grammar,  by  that  test  it  is  correct ;  and  since, 
moreover,  it  is  in  wide  colloquial  use,  it  can  be  con- 
demned in  practice  only  by  the  believer  in  the  rigid 
theoretical  system  of  grammar. 

Another  instance  in  which  order  of  words  has  been 
influential  in  determining  the  form  of  a  case  is  the  con- 
struction "  It  is  me."  This  usage  may  be  said  to  have 
fairly  won  its  way,  at  least  into  good  colloquial  speech. 
Other  similar  forms,  like  "  It  is  her,  him,  them,"  have 
perhaps  not  been  quite  so  successful,  altho  they  fol- 
low the  same  tendency.  In  these  sentences  the  type- 
form,  subject  +  verb  +  object,  has  caused  even  the  word 
after  the  copulative  verb  to  assume  the  objective  form. 
So  strong  is  this  feeling  for  the  objective  as  the  case 
of  all  words  after  the  verb  that  the  traditionally  correct 
"  It  is  I "  has  come  to  be  regarded  as  too  correct,  that 
is,  as  somewhat  pedantic  and  affected. 

An  interesting  conflict  of  tendencies  arises  in  such 
sentences  as  "  I  had  no  expectation  of  him  doing  that," 
or  "I  had  no  expectation  of  his  doing  that."  Both 
usages  are  widely  current  in  colloquial  speech,  altho  the 
rigid  grammarian  strives  to  make  the  forms  with  the 
possessive,  that  is,  "  of  his  doing  that,"  the  only  correct 
form.  This  is  especially  true  when  the  -ing  word  is  pre- 
ceded by  a  pronoun.  Otherwise,  even  in  good  literary 
style,  one  finds  the  non-possessive  form  frequently  used, 
as  in  the  following  examples :  "  This  impossibility  of 
one  man  producing  work  in  exactly  the  same  manner  as 
another  makes  all  deliberate  attempts  at  imitation  as- 


302  MODERN   ENGLISH 

sume  the  form  of  parody  or  caricature"  (Symonds, 
Essays  Speculative  and  Suggestive,  II,  7) ;  "I  can  only 
suggest  a  reason  for  the  effect  being  so  much  greater  in 
my  own  case "  (Hudson,  Idle  Days  in  Patagonia,  p. 
226) ;  "  he  points  out  the  necessity  of  style  being  fash- 
ioned to  the  matter "  (G.  Gregory  Smith,  Elizabethan 
Critical  Essays,  p.  xlii)  ;  "  the  fact  is  that,  strictly 
speaking,  there  is  no  such  thing  as  a  language  becoming 
corrupt"  (Lounsbury,  The  Standard  of  Usage,  p.  57); 
"  the  negro  in  New  England  very  likely  comes  of  a  free 
father  and  grandfather,  and  the  fact  of  a  negro  being  free 
a  generation  or  two  back  was  pretty  sure  sign  of  his  be- 
longing to  the  more  energetic  class  of  his  fellows  "  (Free- 
man, Some  Impressions,  p.  148);  "  there  had  been  a  scene 
between  his  father  and  himself,  which  ended  in  his  father 
disinheriting  him  "  (New  York  Times)  ;  "  there  is  some- 
thing droll  in  the  notion  of  a  Tax  Commissioner  being 
not  too  politely  bowed  out  of  office  "  (ibid.) ;  "  the 
shortness  of  his  left  leg  prevented  him  running  "  (ibid.)  ; 
"  occasioned  by  the  latter  using  an  old  school-fellow's 
privilege  "  (Jespersen,  Growth  and  Structure,  p.  237)  ; 
"  the  Wagnerites  who  used  to  prate  about  Italian  opera 
being  dead"  (Netv  York  Evening  Posf). 

The  logical  origin  of  the  two  forms  of  expression,  the 
one  with  the  possessive,  the  other  with  the  non-posses- 
sive form  of  noun  or  pronoun,  is  not  difficult  to  see.  In 
a  sentence  like  "  I  was  used  to  him  being  so  excited," 
the  instinctive  feeling  is  that  the  preposition  to  should 
be  followed  by  an  objective  case,  "him,"  especially  so 
since  the  word  which  follows  "  him  "  is  not  a  simple 
noun,  but  that  peculiar  kind  of  noun  which  we  call  a 
verbal,  a  noun  that  possesses  as  much  the  value  of  verb 


ENGLISH  GRAMMAR  303 

as  of  noun.  The  sentence  is  thus  adapted  to  the  form 
of  the  parallel  sentence,  "  It  was  usual  for  him  to  be  so 
excited,"  in  which  both  "  him  "  and  "  to  be  "  are  the 
independent  objects  of  the  preposition.  On  the  other 
hand,  when  the  possessive  form  is  used,  "  I  was  used  to 
his  being  so  excited,"  the  verbal  value  of  "  being  "  is  in 
the  background,  and  as  its  noun  value  is  emphasized,  it 
must  logically  become  the  sole  object  of  the  preposition 
and  be  preceded  by  a  modifying  adjective  pronoun.  On 
logical  grounds,  therefore,  both  constructions  are  "  cor- 
rect "  ;  but  the  choice  of  the  construction  which  one 
prefers  to  use  depends,  of  course,  not  so  much  upon 
logic  as  upon  the  conventionalized  custom  of  the  lan- 
guage. As  has  been  stated,  there  is  a  strong  academic 
tendency  to  regard  the  form  of  construction  with  the 
objective  as  popular  English,  and  to  elevate  the  con- 
struction with  the  possessive  as  the  sole  standard  or  cor- 
rect form  of  the  construction.  The  examples  given 
above,  however,  are  sufficient  to  indicate  that  a  hard  and 
fast  rule  requiring  the  possessive  before  the  infinitive  in 
-ing  is  not  a  description  of  the  real  facts.  There  are 
indeed  some  instances  in  which  the  possessive  is  never 
found,  some  even  where  it  would  be  impossible  idiom. 
Thus  when  the  noun  before  the  verbal  is  a  plural  with 
the  usual  s-  ending,  the  possessive  relation  is  never  in- 
dicated by  an  apostrophe,  a  fact  which  shows  that  there 
is  really  no  feeling  for  the  possessive  relation  present  in 
the  construction.  One  could  not  write  Protestants'  in 
the  following :  "  This  has  arisen  in  good  measure  from 
Protestants  not  knowing  the  force  of  theological  terms  " 
(Newman,  Apologia,  p.  352);  or  authorities9  in  "She 
laughed  at  the  idea  of  the.  authorities  holding  her  "  (New 


304  MODERN   ENGLISH 

York  Times)  ;  or  feats  in  "I  have  known  of  these  feats 
being  performed  several  times"  (Roosevelt,  Hunting 
the  Grisly,  p.  121).  In  a  sentence  like  "  We  had  not 
thought  of  that  being  his  real  occupation,"  a  possessive 
form  that '«  is  out  of  the  question  ;  the  pronoun  must  be 
in  the  common  or  non-possessive  form.  It  seems  then 
that  only  when  the  verbal  is  preceded  by  a  personal  pro- 
noun or  the  name  of  a  person  is  there  any  strong  feeling 
that  the  possessive  form  is  necessary.  The  hostility 
towards  a  sentence  like  the  following,  "  History  has  no 
record  of  a  city  existing  under  such  circumstances,"  is 
decidedly  less  than  it  is  towards  a  sentence  like,  "No 
one  ever  heard  of  Lincoln  making  such  a  speech."  But 
sentences  like  this  second  are  common  enough  even  in 
good  writers,  and  the  dogmatic  rule  of  the  grammarian, 
here  as  ever,  must  be  taken  with  liberal  allowance. 

4.  Concord.  The  triumph  of  the  logic  of  meaning 
over  the  strict  rules  of  formal  grammar  is  frequently  illus- 
trated by  the  concord  of  verb  and  subject  in  Modern  Eng- 
lish. A  sentence,  for  example,  like  "  The  whole  car  were 
laughing,"  is  good  English,  altho  it  contains  a  singu- 
lar subject  and  a  plural  verb.  By  "  car,"  however,  one 
of  course  means  "  all  the  people  in  the  car,"  and  this 
idea  has  more  value  in  determining  the  number  of  the 
verb  than  the  singular  form  of  the  mere  word.  Likewise 
we  may  have  two  related  ideas,  connected  by  the  coor- 
dinating and,  which  stand  as  the  subject  of  a  singular 
verb  because  they  are  thought  of  as  practically  one  idea. 
An  illustration  is  Kipling's  line,  "  The  shouting  and  the 
tumult  dies."  According  to  strict  grammar,  we  should 
of  course  have  "  die  "  ;  but  again  the  logic  of  ideas  rises 
superior  to  the  rules  of  formal  grammar.  The  same 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  305 

principle  applies  to  the  varying  treatment  of  collective 
nouns.  We  may  say  "  The  jury  were  of  one  mind,"  in 
which  the  component  parts  of  the  jury  is  the  thought 
uppermost  in  the  mind  ;  or  we  may  say  "  The  jury  was 
selected  without  difficulty,"  where  the  jury  is  thought  of 
as  a  whole.  A  plural  verb  is  often  used  in  constructions 
in  which  we  have  a  singular  subject  to  which  is  united  a 
prepositional  phrase  which  has  all  the  value  of  a  cotfrdi- 
nate  subject.  Thus  the  following  sentence  is  part  of  the 
inscription  on  a  tablet  recently  erected  in  memory  of  the 
novelist  Blackmore :  This  tablet  with  the  window  above  are 
a  tribute  of  admiration,  etc.  This  construction  is  very 
old,  being  found  abundantly  as  far  back  as  Old  English. 
Again  it  is  the  logic  of  the  situation  which  determines  the 
concord,  "  This  tablet  with  the  window  "  being  logically, 
tho  not  grammatically,  equivalent  to  "  This  tablet  and 
the  window." 

In  a  similar  way  a  plural  demonstrative  adjective  is 
often  used  before  the  singular  noun,  in  constructions  like 
"  These  kind  of  apples  are  hard  to  get,"  or  "  Those  sort 
of  people  are  not  often  met  with."  This  is  very  general 
colloquial  usage,  and  sufficient  examples  may  be  cited 
from  good  authors  to  show  that  it  is*  not  impossible 
literary  usage.  Again  it  is  the  general  logic  of  the 
situation  which  determines  the  plural  forms  these,  those. 
The  words  kind  and  sort  are  themselves  collective  nouns 
and  imply  the  idea  of  plurality.  They  are,  moreover, 
usually  followed  in  this  idiom  by  the  plural  of  the  whole 
of  which  the  word  kind  or  sort  is  a  part,  as  in  the  above 
examples,  of  apples  and  of  people.  The  predominant 
thought  of  the  whole  group  of  words  is  consequently  a 
plural  idea,  and  the  demonstrative  naturally  takes  the 

20 


306  MODERN   ENGLISH 

plural  form.  The  grammar  of  such  constructions  is 
determined  by  the  logic  of  general  situation,  not  by  the 
laws  of  formal  concord. 

Another  familiar  illustration  of  the  importance  of 
general  situation  as  compared  with  grammatical  concord 
is  to  be  found  in  the  construction  known  as  "  dangling" 
or  "  unrelated  participle."  The  strict  rule  of  the  gram- 
mars and  rhetorics  is  that  the  participle  must  not  be  used 
without  definite  and  expressed  indication  of  the  word 
which  it  modifies.  With  unskilled  writers  this  is  a  safe 
and  necessary  rule,  since  often  ridiculous  blunders  are 
made  by  neglect  to  follow  it.  The  loose  construction  is 
often  used  also  when  the  writer  has  not  taken  the  trouble 
to  think  out  clearly  what  he  has  to  say.  A  sentence  like 
"  Standing  on  the  hilltop  the  valley  stretched  away  for 
miles  "  is  bad  English,  not  merely  because  the  participle 
"standing"  has  no  word  to  modify,  but  because  the 
general  situation  is  not  adequately  expressed.  At  the 
same  time  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  as  a  rigid  rule 
admitting  no  exceptions,  the  prohibition  against  the 
dangling  participle  is  also  a  dogma  of  the  theoretical 
grammarian  which  is  contrary  to  actual  practice.  Sen- 
tences like  the*  following  from  Carlyle,  "  Speaking  in 
quite  unofficial  language,  what  is  the  net  purpose  and 
upshot  of  war  ?  "  can  be  readily  paralleled,  not  only  in 
colloquial  speech,  but  also  in  the  more  correct  literary 
style.  The  following  is  from  Robert  Louis  Stevenson, 
whom  one  can  hardly  regard  as  a  careless  writer :  "Thence, 
looking  up  and  however  far,  each  fir  stands  separate 
against  the  sky  no  bigger  than  an  eyelash,  and  all  together 
lend  a  fringed  aspect  to  the  hills  "  (Silverado  Squatters). 
Such  sentences  are  indeed  quite  in  harmony  with  the 


^*1ET$^7>£«y 

j*"r*  r  ***  i**'**3  ¥•/  Tfe 

i^^rtP'-'  ^fc^J 

H*y0*+k  ikt^fetrC  +»yt*-*Llw* 

+•!*+&  *&*rerr*1i*  <»**  M+r^ 


-,-^ s-^Zffi^ffc/**** 

*»Ai/c  •Uv«i^%  «*»^  *™ PT*f* f**i!L  ' 

,  ^*^&p«*%^tth'*** 

uW+TH+tKt  *»»4&>******  ++tv*U  *•*<* 
f  M/  <%t*4~k£io~>  ~<€> 


AUTOGRAPH  OF  MILTON'S  "LYCIDAS,"  U.  165-193. 
(For  description,  see  Appendix.) 


308  MODERN  ENGLISH 

general  tendency  of  English  towards  contracted  and 
elliptical  forms  of  expression.  So  long  as  the  meaning 
is  fully  conveyed,  we  do  not  usually  trouble  ourselves 
much  about  questions  of  grammatical  completeness.  It 
is  only  when  the  meaning  is  obscure,  or  when  some  un- 
suitable grouping  of  ideas  is  brought  about  by  the  failure 
to  follow  the  rules  of  grammar,  that  we  have  recourse  to 
the  formal  rule  of  grammar  to  correct  the  evil.  In  other 
words,  grammatical  correctness  is  in  many  instances  in 
Modern  English  not  a  positive,  not  even  a  necessary, 
virtue,  but  merely  a  safeguard  to  prevent  misleading  or 
inadequate  forms  of  statement. 

5.  Meaning  and  Function.  Attention  has  already 
been  called  to  the  ease  and  frequency  with  which  words 
of  one  part  of  speech  pass  over  into  another.  This  again 
is  partly  due  to  the  importance  of  meaning  as  distin- 
guished from  form  in  Modern  English.  Since  words  in 
Modern  English  usually  stand  for  ideas,  without  formal 
restrictions  as  to  the  way  these  ideas  shall  be  expressed, 
they  easily  lend  themselves  to  a  great  variety  of  uses. 
The  function,  or  part  of  speech,  of  a  word  can  thus  be  de- 
termined in  Modern  English  only  by  the  logic  of  its  use. 
The  words  out,  m,  then  are  usually  adverbs,  but  in  phrases 
like  "  the  out  voyage,"  "  the  in  voyage,"  "  In  the  then  con- 
dition of  my  mind  "  (Dickens),  they  are  plainly  adjec- 
tives. Similarly  the  word  so,  in  the  sentence,  "  He  was 
poor  but  honestly  so,"  can  hardly  be  disposed  of  as  an  ad- 
verb. Its  function  rather  is  similar  to  that  of  the  pronoun, 
altho  the  word  which  it  here  stands  in  place  of  is  the  adjec- 
tive "poor,"  an  equivalent  form  of  the  sentence  being 
"  He  was  poor  but  honestly  poor."  In  some  instances 
the  loss  of  older  inflectional  forms  has  resulted  in  a  feel- 


ENGLISH    GRAMMAR 

ing  of  some  uncertainty  on  the  part  of  the  formal  gram- 
marians with  respect  to  the  functional  uses  of  words. 
Thus  the  old  dative  adverb  formed  by  the  addition  of 
the  inflectional  -e  to  the  adjective,  by  the  loss  of  final  -e 
has  become  exactly  like  the  adjective  in  form  (see  above, 
p.  72).  Some  grammarians  are  therefore  inclined  to  re- 
gard such  constructions  as  "  go  slow,"  as  in  "  The  need  of 
going  slow  in  astronomical  science  we  have  urged  many 
times  on  its  practitioners  "  (New  York  Times),  or  "  I  can't 
walk  fast,"  etc.,  as  incorrect,  substituting  what  they  re- 
gard as  the  correct  adverbial  forms,  "  go  slowly,"  or  "  I 
can't  walk  rapidly."  They  thus  strive  to  establish  a 
rigid  and  unequivocal  form  for  adjective  and  adverb. 
This,  as  we  have  endeavored  to  point  out,  is  contrary  to 
the  spirit  of  Modern  English  grammar,  which  makes 
logical  meaning  rather  than  form  the  test  of  value  of  a 
word,  and  if  slow  and  fast  are  used  as  adverbs,  they  a^e 
adverbs  and  nothing  else.  By  this  rule  the  word  "  even- 
ings," in  the  sentence  "  The  library  will  close  evening 
at  eight  o'clock,"  is  a  pure  adverb,  equivalent  in  meaning 
to  the  adverbial  prepositional  phrase  "  in  the  evening." 
In  origin  it  is  derived  from  an  older  adverbial  genitive 
in  -es  (a  construction  which  still  exists  in  Modern 
German),  with  which  in  later  times  was  confused  the  idea 
of  the  plural.  But  logically,  and  therefore  grammatically, 
its  function  is  adverbial  in  Modern  English  whether  it  is 
regarded  as  a  singular  or  a  plural,  and  the  construction 
is  to  be  accepted  as  a  natural  idiom  of  Uie  language. 
Such  adverbial  ideas  as  extent  of  time  and  space  are  also 
expressed  without  inflection  for  adverbial  form.  Thus 
"hours"  in  "I  walked  two  hours,"  and  "miles"  in  "I 
walked  two  miles "  are  both  adverbs.  They  are  some- 


310  MODERN   ENGLISH 

times  called  "  adverbial  objectives/'  because  this  ad- 
verbial function  was  expressed  in  the  Old  English  period 
by  inflection  for  the  accusative  case;  but  in  Modern 
English  there  is  no  thought  of  case  connected  with  the 
words,  and  their  function  is  determinable  merely  by  their 
logical  meaning.  In  one  instance,  in  the  construction 
"  I  am  going  home,"  we  have  the  word  "  home "  pre- 
served in  what  was  originally  a  locative  case  of  a  noun ; 
but  here  also  the  feeling  for  case  has  disappeared,  and  the 
word  is  to  be  regarded  simply  as  an  adverb. 

Another  adverb  which  in  origin  is  derived  from  an 
inflectional  form,  but  which  has  become  even  more 
obscured  than  those  cited,  is  the  adverb  the  in  such 
expressions  as  "  The  more  the  merrier" ;  "  The  sooner  you 
do  this,  the  better  it  will  be  for  you."  The  word  the  in 
the  inflectional  Old  English  period  of  the  language  was, 
in  this  construction,  an  instrumental  case  of  the  demon- 
strative pronoun,  its  form  being  J>y ;  in  meaning  it  was 
equivalent  to  a  prepositional  phrase  " by  this,"  or  "by 
that."  Our  Modern  English  "  The  more,  the  merrier  " 
might  be  paraphrased,  therefore,  as  "more  by  this, 
merrier  by  that,"  in  which  of  course  "  by  this  "  and  "  by 
that"  are  adverbial  phrases  modifying  the  adjectives 
"more  "  and  "  merrier."  From  this  analysis  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  word  the  in  such  constructions  as  the  more, 
etc.,  since  it  has  the  function  of  an  adverb,  is  to  be  treated 
as  such,  even  tho  in  form  it  seems  very  remote  from 
everything  that  we  connect  with  the  idea  of  adverb.  It 
is  not  possible  to  dismiss  the  construction,  as  is  often 
done,  merely  as  an  "  idiom,"  incapable  of  analysis.  It  is 
an  easy  but  unjustifiable  way  of  evading  grammatical 
difficulties  to  group  them  together  as  idioms,  undeiv 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  311 

standing  by  that  term  peculiar,  illogical,  and  inexplicable 
constructions  which  have  found  their  way  into  the 
language  in  some  mysterious  manner  beyond  the  power 
of  man  to  discover.  Idioms  of  this  sort  are  not  found 
in  the  English  language.  There  are  many  constructions 
which  it  is  difficult  to  account  for  on  the  basis  of  the 
traditional,  theoretical  systems  of  grammar,  but  there 
are  no  constructions  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  on 
the  grounds  of  logical  development.  The  term  "  idiom  " 
is  needed  for  better  uses  than  to  serve  as  a  designation 
for  something  which  does  not  exist.  It  is  needed  to 
designate  those  methods  of  expression  which  are  peculiar 
to  one  language  as  distinguished  from  another.  Thus 
it  is  proper  to  speak  of  an  English,  a  German,  or  a 
French  idiom.  To  write  or  to  speak  English  idiomati- 
cally means  to  write  or  speak  it  with  due  understand- 
ing of  and  regard  for  those  specific  forms  of  expression 
by  virtue  of  which  English  is  English  as  distinguished 
from  all  other  languages. 

An  interesting  development  of  Modern  English  gram- 
mar is  the  extension  of  the  class  of  copulative  verbs.  A 
copulative  verb  may  be  defined  as  a  verb  of  weakened 
predication  or  assertion.  It  serves  as  a  colorless  link- 
word  rather  than  to  make  a  positive  declaration.  Its 
commonest,  and  apparently  oldest  form,  is  the  verb  "  to 
be,"  which  in  its  most  positive  significance  expresses 
merely  the  negative  act  of  existence.  Closely  related  to 
"to  be"  are  such  words  as  "to  become,"  "to  appear," 
"to  seem,"  etc.  Syntactically  these  copulative  verbs 
have  to  be  put  into  a  class  apart  from  the  transitive 
verbs,  because  when  they  are  followed  by  a  substantive 
word,  noun  or  pronoun,  this  word  is  in  the  nominative, 


312  MODERN  ENGLISH 

OT  predicate  nominative,  case,  and  also  because,  unlike 
the  transitive  verbs,  they  may  be  followed  by  adjectives, 
known  as  predicate  adjectives,  as  in  "  I  am  glad,"  or  "  He 
seems  happy."  It  is  in  this  second  construction,  in 
cases  in  which  the  copulative  verb  is  followed  by  the 
predicate  adjective,  that  the  extension  of  its  use  has 
occurred.  The  forms  of  the  verb  "  to  be  "  have  remained 
the  only  ones  which  may  be  followed  by  a  nominative 
case  of  the  pronoun.  But  the  number  of  verbs  which 
may  be  followed  by  predicate  adjectives  has  been  largely 
increased.  Examples  are  turn,  as  in  "  The  milk  turned 
sour " ;  look,  as  in  "  he  looks  sad " ;  feel,  as  in  "  I  feel 
sick  " ;  smelly  as  in  "  it  smells  sweet " ;  sound,  as  in  "  the 
horns  sound  loud  "  ;  flush,  as  in  "  he  flushed  red  "  ;  and 
a  great  many  others.  Instances  occur  abundantly  in 
literary  English.  Jeffries  (The  Open  Air)  has  the  follow- 
jig :  "  There  was  a  coat  of  fallen  needles  under  the  firs 
an  inch  thick,  and  beneath  it  the  dry  earth  touched 
warm."  With  the  novelist  Meredith  it  has  developed 
almost  into  a  mannerism  of  style.  Almost  every  page 
will  furnish  illustrations,  of  which  one  or  two  from  the 
early  pages  of  his  Vittoria  may  be  cited :  "  Luigi's  blood 
shot  purple  "  ;  "In  his  sight  she  looked  a  dark  Madonna, 
with  the  sun  shining  bright  gold  through  the  edges  of  the 
summer  hat."  Many  of  these  verbs  have  quite  as  much 
asserting  value  as  most  intransitive  verbs,  and  if  it  were 
not  for  the  predicative  adjectives  which  accompany  them, 
we  might  classify  them  simply  as  intransitive  verbs. 
That  these  words  which  stand  after  the  verbs  are  true 
adjectives  and  not  adverbs  is  determined  by  our  feeling 
for  the  logic  of  the  statements.  Sentences  like  "  The 
flower  smells  sweet"  or  "  The  earth  touched  warm  "  do 


ENGLISH  GRAMMAR  313 

not  describe  the  manner  of  action  of  the  verb.  They  are 
rather  equivalent  to  the  paraphrases,  "The  flower  is 
sweet  to  the  smell,"  and  "  The  earth  was  warm  to  the 
touch."  They  combine,  therefore,  the  function  of  the 
copulative  and  the  intransitive  verb,  and  are  charac- 
teristic of  Modern  English  in  their  vigorous  compression 
of  statement.  The  same  feeling  for  compact,  strong  ex- 
pression which  leads  to  the  direct  formation  of  verbs  from 
nouns,  as,  for  example,  "  to  bell  a  cat,"  instead  of  the 
weaker  "  to  put  a  bell  on  a  cat,"  or  "  to  house  the  poor/' 
instead  of  "  to  provide  houses  for  the  poor,"  will  help  io 
explain  also  such  elliptical  and  strongly  expressive  uses 
of  the  verb  as  "  The  earth  touched  warm,"  instead  of 
"  The  earth  was  warm  to  the  touch." 

6.  Function-Groups.  One  result  of  the  loss  of  i/i 
flections  in  English  and  the  consequent  tendency  of  the 
words  of  the  language  to  assume  generalized  forms,  each 
word  becoming  a  completely  independent  word-unit,  has 
been  the  formation  of  what  may  be  called  function- 
groups.  In  a  completely  inflectional  language,  such 
things  as  function-groups  would  not  exist ;  for  the  lan- 
guage would  have  for  every  grammatical  function  which 
it  wished  to  express  an  appropriate  inflectional  form. 
In  English,  however,  many  of  the  grammatical  functions 
can  be  expressed  only  by  means  of  groups  of  words. 
Thus  English  has  no  true  inflectional  passive  voice,  and 
has  not  had  any  since  the  earliest  recorded  periods  of  its 
existence.  The  passive  voice  has  to  be  expressed  by  a 
group  of  words,  consisting  of  a  form  of  the  verb  "  to  be  " 
united  to  the  past  participle.  Likewise  most  of  the 
tenses  in  Modern  English,  e.  g.,  I  have  gone,  I  had  gone, 
I  shall  go,  etc.,  have  to  be  expressed  by  function-groups, 


314  MODERN  ENGLISH 

not  by  inflections.  If  we  were  strictly  logical,  we  should 
write  the  parts  of  a  function-group  together  as  one 
word,  since  it  has  but  a  single  value ;  or  at  least  we 
should  connect  them  by  hyphens,  I  had-gone,  I  shall-go, 
etc.  As  a  matter  of  fact  we  do  this  in  some  instances, 
but  in  others  we  do  not.  We  write  "  window-sill ," 
"  typewriter,"  "  office-boy,"  etc.,  with  or  without  hy- 
phens, but  exactly  similar  groups  are  not  united  at  all, 
as,  for  example,  "  a  bank  president,"  "  the  city  editor," 
"a  carpet  factory,"  etc.  The  usage  of  the  printed  and 
written  language  in  this  respect  is  altogether  inconsist- 
ent. Certain  compound  prepositions,  like  into,  beside, 
etc.,  are  written  together  as  one  word,  but  others  are  not 
only  not  written  together,  but  may  not  be  written  to- 
gether, such  as  out  of,  on  to,  alongside  of,  because  of,  by 
reason  of  the  artifical  distinction  established  by  conven- 
tional usage.  This  diversity  of  printed  and  written 
forms  is,  however,  purely  accidental  and  external.  The 
function  of  out  of  and  into  are  identical  in  the  sentence, 
"He  fell  out  of  the  boat  into  the  water,"  even  tho 
they  do  differ  in  form.  A  few  further  illustrations  may 
be  cited.  The  words  head  on,  in  "  The  ships  struck  head 
on"  is  an  adverbial  function-group  modifying  struck. 
In  the  sentence,  "  The  shores  were  steep  to  all  around  " 
(Conrad,  Nostromo,  Chapter  I)  steep  to  is  a  predicate 
adjective.  The  verb  in  the  sentence,  "  It  is  all  over  with 
me  "  is  the  function-group  is  over,  which  is  modified  by 
the  adverb  all.  The  value  of  burst  open  as  a  function- 
group  is  clearly  brought  out  in  the  following  sentence, 
where  the  words  are  once  used  as  a  verb  and  then  as  an 
adjective  :  "  The  cottonfields  themselves  when  the  bolls 
burst  open,  seem  almost  as  if  whitened  by  snow,  and  the 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  315 

red  and  white  flowers,  interspersed  among  the  burst-open 
pods,  make  the  whole  field  beautiful"  (Roosevelt,  "  In 
the  Louisiana  Canebrakes,"  Scrilner's  Magazine,  January 
1908).  The  words  thirty  odd,  in  "  I  found  thirty  odd 
volumes  on  the  shelves,"  are  an  adjective  modifying 
volumes,  exactly  equivalent  in  value  to  thirty-three,  or 
thirty-five,  etc.  In  the  sentence  "  I  will  look  into  it," 
the  verb  is  the  group  will  look  into  ;  in  "  The  ball  went 
flying  through  the  air,"  the  verb  is  the  group  went  flying ; 
in  "  He  ran  up  a  bill,"  the  verb  is  ran  up.  Many  other 
illustrations  might  be  cited,  but  those  given  are  sufficient 
to  show  that  not  every  separate  word  by  itself  has  gram- 
matical function  in  Modern  English  grammar,  but  that 
words  must  often  be  taken  together  as  constituting 
function-groups.  In  such  cases  it  is  contrary  to  the 
idiom  of  the  language  to  try  to  analyze  the  groups  into 
their  constituent  parts  so  as  to  give  every  word,  standing 
alone,  a  clearly  defined  structural  value. 

So  far  has  this  feeling  for  the  function-group  devel- 
oped that  often  we  have  a  kind  of  group  inflection. 
Thus  in  a  phrase  like  "The  governor  of  California's 
policy,"  the  possessive  inflection  should  strictly  go  with 
governor ;  the  whole  phrase,  however,  the  governor  of 
California,  is  felt  to  belong  together  and  to  serve  as  a 
possessive  modifier  of  policy,  and  the  inflection  is  conse- 
quently attached  to  the  group  as  a  whole.  This  use  is 
capable  of  almost  indefinite  extension.  In  groups  of 
two  or  more  words  in  names  or  titles,  as,  for  example, 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  Works,  the  Chicago  and  Alton's 
rolling  stock,  etc.,  the  possessive  inflection  ends  the  group. 
In  two  appositive  nouns  the  possessive  inflection  is  added 
pnly  to  the  second,  as  in  "  We  stopped  at  Mr,  Barton, 


316  MODERN  ENGLISH 

the  clergyman's  house,  for  a  drink  of  water."  In  popu- 
lar speech  a  sentence  like  "  That 's  the  man  we  saw  yes- 
terday's hat "  is  not  only  quite  intelligible  but  is  felt  to 
be  quite  idiomatic.  It  is  equivalent  to  "  That  is  the  hat 
of  the  man  whom  we  saw  yesterday."  This,  however,  is 
very  formal  English,  the  phrase  "  the  hat  of  the  man  " 
being  unusual  spoken  idiom  ;  one  would  more  naturally 
say  "  That  is  the  man's  hat  whom,"  etc.  In  the  sentence 
as  first  given  the  main  structural  part  of  the  sentence  is 
simply  "  That  is  the  hat "  ;  the  rest  of  the  sentence  is 
felt  to  be  merely  a  possessive  modifier  of  hat,  and  the 
mark  of  the  possessive  relation  is  consequently  added 
to  the  last  word  of  the  group  preceding  the  modified 
word. 

An  instance  of  artificial  logic  applied  to  a  related 
construction  is  to  be  found  in  the  affected  use  of  the 
phrase  somebody  or  anybody  else's.  The  normal  idiom 
in  the  use  of  this  phrase  gives  it  the  form  cited.  It  is  a 
function-group  with  the  value  of  an  indefinite  pronoun, 
and  the  possessive  inflection  is  naturally  appended  to  the 
last  element  in  the  group.  With  certain  theoretical 
and  conscious  speakers  and  grammarians,  however,  the 
phrase  is  given  the  form  anybody's  else.  This  is  neither 
general  custom  nor  is  it  good  logic.  To  say  His  opinion 
is  as  good  as  anybody' 's  else,  or  to  speak  of  anybody's  else 
policy  would  be  as  unidiomatic  as  to  say  the  governor's 
policy  of  California.  The  use  of  the  form  anybody's  else 
is  a  good  illustration  of  the  danger  of  placing  the 
authority  of  individual  and  theoretical  logic  above  the 
authority  of  general  custom  in  language. 

7.  Mixed  Syntax.  Occasional  questions  of  gram- 
mar arise  in  which  the  source  of  the  difficulty  lies  in  the 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  317 

mixing  of  two  forms  of  construction.  A  familiar  illus- 
tration is  the  prohibited  "  and  which"  and  "  and  whom  " 
construction.  According  to  the  strict  rule,  which  and 
whom  should  be  connected  with  a  preceding  clause  by 
the  coordinating  conjunction  and  only  when  a  real  coor- 
dination is  intended,  that  is,  when  two  relative  clauses 
of  the  same  syntax  are  to  be  coordinately  united. 
Colloquially,  however,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  in 
literary  style  as  well,  the  coordinating  and  is  used  to 
connect  a  single  relative  clause  with  its  main  clause. 
The  following  sentence  from  a  newspaper  report  of  a 
recent  speech  of  the  King  of  Portugal  will  serve  as 
illustration:  "I  thank  your  Majesty  for  the  cordial 
reception  you  have  given  us,  and  which  we  appre- 
ciate." Another  illustration  may  be  cited  from  Bor- 
row (Bible  in  Spain,  II,  336),  in  whose  writings  the 
construction  abounds:  "The  principal  personage,  and 
to  whom  all  the  rest  paid  much  deference,  was  a  tall 
nan  of  about  forty."  Such  constructions  are  really  a 
confusion  of  two  different  forms  of  expression.  From 
the  two  forms,  "I  thank  your  Majesty  for  the  cordial 
reception  you  have  given  us,  which  we  appreciate," 
add  "  I  thank  your  Majesty  for  the  cordial  reception 
you  have  given  us,  and  we  appreciate  it,"  is  fashioned 
a  contamination  of  both,  "  I  thank  your  Majesty  for  the 
cordial  reception  you  have  given  us,  and  which  we  ap- 
preciate." The  sentence  from  Borrow  is  made  up  of 
the  two  forms,  "  The  principal  personage,  to  whom  all 
the  rest,"  etc.,  and  "  The  principal  personage  and  the 
one  to  whom,"  etc.,  or  "  The  principal  personage  and  to 
him,"  etc.  From  the  point  of  view  of  clear  definition 
of  thought,  there  is  consequently  good  ground  for 


318  MODERN  ENGLISH 

objecting  to  the  lax  use  of  the  and  which,  and  whom 
construction. 

Another  illustration  of  mixed  syntax  is  to  be  found  in 
the  customary  use  of  the  preposition  to,  into  after  a  verb 
of  rest,  as  "  Have  you  ever  been  to  Chicago  ?  "  The 
usual  preposition  after  forms  of  the  verb  to  be  is  a£, 
after  verbs  of  motion,  to,  into.  In  sentences  like  the  one 
cited,  however,  the  verb  to  be  is  not  the  mere  verb  of 
rest,  but  has  almost  acquired  the  value  of  a  verb  of 
motion.  In  other  instances  the  construction  does  not 
seem  quite  so  natural.  The  following  from  a  recent 
magazine  article :  "  By  one  o'clock  I  was  back  to  Mr. 
Rogers'  office,"  would  be  more  customarily  expressed 
"  By  one  o'clock  I  was  back  at  Mr.  Rogers'  office,"  or 
"  By  one  o'clock  I  came  back  to  Mr.  Rogers'  office." 
The  phrase  "  have  never  been  into  it,"  occurs  in 
the  following  sentence  (Henry  James,  Transatlantic 
Sketches,  p.  237) :  "  The  church  is  lighted  only  by  a 
few  glimmering  tapers,  and  as  I  have  never  been  into  it 
but  at  this  hour,  I  know  nothing  of  its  interior  aspect." 
We  might  naturally  say  "  I  have  never  been  in  it,"  or 
"I  have  never  gone  into  it,"  but  "I  have  never  been 
into  it"  seems  to  be  an  unidiomatic  blending  of  both 
forms  of  expression. 

An  old  rule  of  the  formal  grammars  and  rhetorics 
which  is  now  happily  passing  out  of  existence  ran  to 
the  effect  that  sentences  must  not  end  with  prepositions. 
The  rule  was  made  in  face  of  the  fact  that  in  actual 
speech  and  in  writing  sentences  do  end  with  preposi- 
tions, and  historically,  from  the  Old  English  period 
down,  always  have  ended  with  prepositions  in  certain 
constructions.  The  shifting  of  the  preposition  to  the 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  319 

end  of  the  sentence  merely  has  the  effect  of  emphasizing 
its  adverbial  value.  In  sentences  containing  a  relative 
clause  with  the  relative  pronoun  omitted,  the  sentence 
cannot  end  otherwise  than  with  a  preposition,  as  in 
"  Where  is  the  man  you  are  to  play  with  ?  "  or  "  This  is 
the  house  I  was  born  in."  But  the  old  rule  is  perhaps 
too  far  gone  to  require  more  than  a  passing  notice.  A 
rule  of  similar  origin,  which  is  also  less  frequently  met 
with  now  than  formerly,  relates  to  the  pronoun  to  be 
used  in  referring  to  the  indefinite  one.  The  old  rule 
ran  to  the  effect  that  one  must  always  be  referred  to  by 
itself  or  one  of  its  forms.  By  rule  the  following  sen- 
tence would  be  very  elegant  English :  "  If  one  should 
do  that,  one  would  soon  find  that  one's  reputation  would 
suffer."  In  natural  usage,  however,  one  may  be  and 
is  referred  to  by  Ae,  and,  in  the  possessive,  by  his. 
Another  artificial  rule  more  honored  in  the  breach  than 
in  the  observance  is  that  which  requires  the  coordinate 
particles  so  ...  as  when  the  sentence  is  negative, 
but  as  ...  as  when  the  sentence  is  affirmative.  Thus 
we  must  say  "  He  is  as  tall  as  I  am,"  but  "  He  is 
not  so  tall  as  I  am."  No  valid  argument  can  be  found 
for  this  rule  either  in  logic  or  in  actual  use,  and  it  seems 
to  owe  its  existence  merely  to  that  passion  for  subtle 
and  dogmatically  defined  distinctions  which  generally 
characterizes  the  theoretical  grammarian.  The  prohibi- 
tion against  the  use  of  like  as  conjunction  has  a  little 
more  relation  to  actual  fact.  The  word  may  be  used  as 
verb,  as  in  "  I  like  tennis  " ;  or  as  a  preposition,  as  in 
"  You  look  like  your  father  "  ;  or  as  an  adverb  in  some- 
what archaic  or  popular  speech,  as  in  "  You  are  not  like 
to  find  him  here."  But  in  such  a  sentence  as  "Ha 


320  MODERN  ENGLISH 

looks  like  I  did  at  his  age,"  the  usage  is  "  now  generally 
condemned  as  vulgar  or  slovenly." l  The  use  of  like  as 
conjunction  arises  from  the  ellipsis  of  a  fuller  form,  like 
as,  as  in  the  verse  in  the  Psalms,  "  Like  as  a  father 
pitieth  his  children,"  etc.  In  the  simplification  of  this 
double  conjunction,  it  happens  that  the  second  half  is 
the  one  which  has  most  generally  persisted  and  the  one 
which  the  formal  grammarian  would  raise  to  the  position 
of  standard.  But  the  ellipsis  of  as,  leaving  like  for  the 
simplified  conjunction,  is  just  as  natural  and  just  as 
reasonable,  and  so  we  find  it  in  use  side  by  side  with  as. 
"The  use  of  like  for  as,"  says  Professor  Matthew?.2 
"  not  uncommon  in  the  Southern  States  [and  Eastei  n 
and  Western  he  might  have  added],  has  there  always 
been  regarded  as  an  indefensible  colloquialism;  but  ;n 
England  it  is  heard  in  the  conversation  of  literary  men 
of  high  standing,  and  now  and  again  it  even  gets  itse  If 
into  print  in  books  of  good  repute."  A  colloquialis1  n 
like  as  conjunction  may  be,  but  indefensible  it  certainly 
is  not.  It  is  first  of  all  a  widespread  custom  of  the 
speech,  it  has  arisen  naturally  and  in  the  same  way  that 
as  has,  and  unless  one  starts  from  the  a  priori  position 
that  there  is  only  one  legitimate  form  of  expression  for 
every  idea  in  speech,  it  makes  as  strong  a  bid  for  favor 
as  the  conjunction  as. 

8.  Book  Grammar.  The  study  of  systematic,  or 
technical,  or  formal  grammar,  as  it  is  variously  called, 
has  grown  tremendously  in  modern  times.  It  is  made  a 
part  of  every  elementary  and  high  school  course  of  in- 

1  New  English  Dictionary,  s.  v.  like.     The  dictionary  adds,  however, 
that  "examples  may  be  found  in  many  recent  writers  of  standing." 
*  Americanisms  and  Briticisms,  p.  16. 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  321 

si  ruction,  and  is  even  sometimes  carried  over  into  the  col- 
lege. Where  in  earlier  periods  the  development  of  the 
feeling  for  the  customary  forms  of  expression  was  left 
almost  entirely  to  natural  habit,  as  developed  in  the 
home  and  in  general  social  intercourse,  in  modern  times, 
partly  through  the  elevation  of  a  more  rigid  standard  of 
uniformity  in  usage,  but  mainly  through  the  wide  ex- 
tension of  popular  education,  the  tendency  is  to  make 
grammar  as  conscious  and  systematic  a  study  as  history 
or  mathematics.  This  tendency  began  only  in  the  mid- 
dle and  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century.  One  of 
the  earliest  grammars  of  the  modern  type  was  that  of 
Bishop  Lowth,  published  in  London  in  1767.  In  the 
preface  to  this  volume,  the  author  declares  that  "  the 
principal  design  of  a  Grammar  of  any  language  is  to 
tuach  us  to  express  ourselves  with  propriety  in  that  lan- 
guage, and  to  enable  us  to  judge  of  every  phrase  and 
form  of  construction,  whether  it  be  right  or  not.  The 
p(ain  way  of  doing  this  is  to  lay  down  rules,  and  to 
illustrate  them  by  examples.  But,  besides  showing 
what  is  right,  the  matter  may  be  further  explained 
by  pointing  out  what  is  wrong."  And  so  the  greater 
part  of  Lowth's  grammar  is  taken  up  with  pointing 
out  what  he  thinks  to  be  right  and  what  he  thinks  to 
be  wrong  in  the  writings  of  Pope,  Dryden,  Prior,  and 
other  authors  of  his  period  whom  we  now  regard  as 
classic.  Grammars  were  also  written,  about  this  time, 
for  the  instruction  of  "young  Gentlemen,"  and  espe- 
cially for  the  use  of  "  the  fair  Sex,"  whose  defective 
education  in  grammar,  spelling,  and  composition  is  the 
subject  of  frequent  satirical  comment  in  the  writings 
of  the  period.  These  grammars  are  significant  of  a 

21 


322  MODERN   ENGLISH 

change  which  was  coming  over  English  education  at 
that  time.  Formerly  it  had  been  regarded  as  sufficient 
school-master  education  for  a  gentleman  if  he  was  able 
to  sign  his  name  to  a  document,  and  many  a  lady 
famous  in  English  history  could  not  boast  even  of  this 
accomplishment.  Now,  however,  a  new  test  of  educa- 
tion or  cultivation  began  to  assume  prominence,  the 
test  of  ability  to  express  one's  self  in  the  conventional 
or  standardized  forms  of  expression,  both  in  speech  and 
in  writing.  The  tendency  towards  a  fixed  spelling  and 
a  fixed  grammar  went  hand  in  hand,  and  so  far  has  this 
tendency  advanced  that  to-day  deviations  from  the  es- 
tablished and  conventional  orthography  and  grammar 
are  the  most  convenient  and  the  most  frequently  ap- 
plied rough  tests,  if  not  of  culture,  at  least  of  education 
and  social  position. 

The  importance  which  modern  education  has  assigned 
to  conventional  grammar  has  naturally  resulted  in  the 
development  of  what  we  have  called  "  book  grammar." 
Correct  grammar  having  been  made  one  of  the  essentials 
of  correct  conduct  it  was  necessary  to  have  books  giving 
the  rules  of  correct  grammar.  To  supply  this  need  those 
speakers  of  the  language  who  were  convinced  that  they 
knew  what  the  correct  grammar  of  the  language  was 
have  provided  such  books  with  amazing  abundance. 
These  books  are,  of  course,  nothing  more  than  the  record 
of  the  customary  use  of  the  language  as  observed  by  the 
authors  of  them,  for  the  grammarian  has  no  more  power 
of  legislating  in  the  rules  of  grammar  than  the  scientist 
has  in  the  physical  laws  of  nature.  Both  simply  record 
the  results  of  their  observation.  The  hold,  however, 
which  the  records,  of  the  professed  grammarian  have  ac- 


ENGLISH   GRAMMAR  323 

quired  over  the  average  user  of  the  language  is  peculiar. 
The  grammarian  merely  records  the  social  habits  or  cus- 
toms of  the  speech  of  his  community,  and  yet  many  per- 
sons who  in  other  ways  determine  their  social  habits  or 
customs  by  their  own  observation,  give  to  the  grammar 
the  power  of  a  final  authority.  The  rules  of  personal 
conduct,  for  example,  behavior  at  table,  or  the  forms  of 
politeness,  are  learned  by  the  process  of  -social  inter- 
course ;  no  one  of  any  social  experience  governs  his  con- 
duct by,  or  defers  to,  the  authority  of  the  rules  of  any 
book  of  good  manners.  For  such  he  usually  has  the 
greatest  contempt,  preferring  to  follow  the  guide  of  per- 
sonal experience  and  observation.  But  the  customs  of 
speech  are  also  merely  the  regularized  habits  of  the 
speech  of  a  community.  Why,  then,  should  not  the 
speaker  depend  as  much  upon  the  authority  of  his  per- 
sonal experience  and  observation  here  as  in  the  other 
social  relations  of  life  ?  If  the  discussions  of  the  preced- 
ing pages  have  been  followed,  it  will  be  evident  that  it 
is  the  author's  opinion  that  he  should.  Grammars  are 
sometimes  helpful  in  enabling  a  speaker  or  writer  to 
broaden  the  field  of  his  personal  observation.  But  in 
the  end,  unless  he  is  willing  to  become  merely  a  blind 
follower  of  precept  and  authority,  his  own  use  must 
rest  upon  personal  observation  and  choice.  Book  gram- 
mar is  inadequate  as  a  guide ;  it  is  even  at  times  false 
and  misleading.  The  best  grammar  ever  written  is  only 
a  skeleton  of  the  speech  of  some  past  period.  To  set 
book  grammar  up  as  the  test  and  the  source  of  authority 
in  language  inevitably  leads  to  a  stiff,  artificial,  and  un- 
expressive  use  of  language.  The  real  guide  to  good 
grammar,  to  good  English  in  all  respects,  is  to  be  found 


MODERN  ENGLISH 

in  the  living  speech.  And  only  he  whose  experience 
and  observation  of  the  living  speech  are  sufficiently 
broad  to  enable  him  to  employ  it  with  perfect  ease  ard 
confidence  can  be  said  to  have  realized  the  spirit,  tli£ 
idiom  of  the  language. 


vm 

CONCLUSION 

In  the  discussions  of  the  preceding  pages  a  good  deal 
has  been  said  here  and  there  concerning  good  English 
and  bad  English.  It  may  be  of  advantage  to  gather 
together,  by  way  of  conclusion,  the  various  threads  of 
these  discussions,  and  to  endeavor  to  present  some  con- 
nected answer  to  the  ever-recurring  question,  What  is 
good  English? 

It  is  plain  that  the  question  of  good  English  may  arise 
with  reference  to  any  of  the  different  sides  of  language. 
Thus  the  point  to  be  determined  may  be  one  of  sound, 
or  pronunciation ;  of  words,  or  vocabulary ;  or  one  of 
grammar  in  the  narrower  sense,  the  way  in  which  the 
sounds  and  words  of  the  language  are  united  for  the 
expression  of  thought.  But  the  principles  which  govern 
the  answer  to  all  questions  of  good  English,  whether  of 
pronunciation,  or  vocabulary,  or  grammar,  are  the  same. 
The  feeling  which  underlies  the  distinctions  of  right  and 
wrong,  of  good  and  bad,  is  a  general  feeling  for  the  lan- 
guage as  a  whole,  and  the  threefold  division  that  has 
been  made  is  only  of  practical  value  as  a  convenient  way 
of  ordering  the  various  kinds  of  detail  which  come  up 
for  discussion. 

In  the  first  place,  there  should  be  a  clear  understand- 
ing of  the  difference  between  "  good  English  "  and  "  con- 
ventional "  or  "  standard  English."  Standard  English 


326  MODERN   ENGLISH 

is  likely  to  be  good  English,  but  all  good  English  is  not 
necessarily  standard  English.  What,  then,  is  good  Eng. 
lish?  The  purpose  of  language  being  the  satisfactory 
communication  of  thought  and  feeling,  that  is  good 
English  which  performs  this  function  satisfactorily. 
Such  a  definition  of  good  English,  it  will  be  observed, 
is  purely  utilitarian  and  practical.  It  defines  good  Eng- 
lish only  in  the  terms  of  its  activity,  without  reference 
to  any  theoretical  and  abstract  conceptions  of  its  value 
or  significance.  Whenever  two  minds  come  into  satis- 
factory contact  with  each  other,  through  the  medium  of 
language,  we  have  then,  so  far  as  each  instance  taken  by 
itself  is  concerned,  a  good  use  of  language.  The  rustic 
with  his  dialect,  and  in  his  own  homogeneous  dialect 
community,  realizes  as  much  the  purpose  of  language  as 
the  most  polished  speaker  in  the  "  best  society  "  of  the 
city.  Each  expresses  himself  satisfactorily  and  is  under- 
stood satisfactorily,  and  more  than  this  language  at  its 
best  cannot  do.  Our  definition  of  good  English  is,  there- 
fore, very  simple ;  any  English  that  "  hits  the  mark  "  is 
good  English.  To  hit  the  mark  in  the  center,  it  must 
express  exactly  what  the  speaker  or  writer  wishes  to 
express,  in  such  linguistic  terms  as  will  convey  to  the 
hearer  or  reader  exactly  those  impressions  which  it  is 
intended  that, he  shall  receive. 

When  we  come  to  analyze  the  situation  a  little  more 
closely,  however,  we  find  that  there  are  various  kinds  of 
good  English,  that  the  question  of  "  bad  English  "  usu- 
ally arises  when  one  kind  of  English  is  used  in  circum- 
stances which  require  a  different  kind,  when  one  has 
tried  to  hit  the  mark  with  the  wrong  arrow.  Thus  there 
is  that  form  of  English  which  is  known  as  "  popular 


CONCLUSION  327 

English."  This  is  the  speech  of  those  who,  usually 
through  limited  experience  and  education,  are  unac- 
quainted with  the  usage  which  the  community  in  general 
regards  as  the  better  social  custom.  Sometimes,  as  in 
the  poetry  of  Burns,  it  is  made  the  vehicle  for  literary 
expression.  Usually,  however,  it  is  a  purely  colloquial 
speech.  Naturally,  the  limits  of  popular  English  are 
not  absolutely  defined,  but  are  largely  a  matter  of  opin- 
ion. The  term  usually  carries  with  it  some  unfavorable 
connotations.  Popukr  English  is  the  "vulgar"  English 
of  the  lower  classes  of  society.  But  just  who  these 
lower  classes  are,  just  the  dividing  line  between  the 
upper  and  the  lower,  these  are  matters  hard  to  deter- 
mine. A  positive  test  of  culture,  outside  the  dogmatic 
opinion  of  individuals,  has  never  yet  been  discovered. 
Certainly  it  can  hardly  be  said  that  the  person  who  has 
received  the  conventional  education  is,  by  and  for  that 
reason  solely,  a  more  highly  cultivated  person  than  one 
who  has  not. 

A  second  kind  of  English  is  called  "  colloquial  Eng- 
lish." This  is  the  speech  of  the  commonplace  concerns 
cf  daily  life  and  of  less  serious  conversation,  a  speech 
freer  aiii  less  conscious  than  formal  speech,  but  not 
carrying  with  it  the  suggestion  of  illiteracy  which  char- 
acterizes popular  speech.  The  degree  of  colloquialism 
which  one  permits,  in  one's  self  or  in  others,  depends  on 
the  subject  of  conversation,  on  the  intimacy  of  the  ac- 
quaintanceship of  the  persons  speaking,  and  in  general 
on  all  the  attendant  circumstances. 

A  third  kind  of  English  is  "  formal  or  literary  English." 
This  is  the  English  of  public  speaking,  of  more  formal 
conversation,  and  of  printed  and  written  literature.  It 


328  MODERN   ENGLISH 

varies  widely  in  the  degree  of  its  formality,  the  style  of 
a  philosophic  treatise  being  appropriately  more  formal 
than  that  of  a  light  essay.  There  is  also  one  manner  of 
speaking  for  the  pulpit  and  another  for  the  lecture-plat- 
form, one  manner  for  the  judge  in  court  and  another  for 
the  stump  orator.  The  line  of  demarcation  between  for- 
mal and  colloquial  English  is  not  sharp,  just  as  it  is  not 
between  colloquial  and  popular  English.  The  style  of 
some  authors  or  public  speakers,  for  example,  is  de- 
cidedly more  colloquial,  more  familiar,  than  that  of 
others.  With  all,  however,  whatever  the  degree  of  for- 
mality, the  dependence  of  the  literary  speech  upon  the 
colloquial  speech  of  natural  intercourse  is  necessary.  It 
is  from  the  colloquial  speech  that  the  literary  speech  has 
its  vitality.  If  left  to  itself,  its  tendency  would  be  to 
develop  into  a  highly  specialized  and  artificial  form  of 
expression  —  a  special  high-caste  language  for  literature 
that  would  grow  less  and  less  real  and  expressive  as  it 
detached  itself  more  and  more  from  the  colloquial  speech 
in  which  the  common  human  concerns  of  life  and  death 
find  their  most  intimate  expression.  It  is  perhaps 
better,  therefore,  to  speak  of  these  three  kinds  of  speech, 
popular,  colloquial,  and  literary,  not  as  three  distinct  and 
separate  species,  but  rather  as  three  tendencies  of  devel- 
opment of  what  is  at  bottom  one  speech,  and  that  a 
popular  speech  in  the  sense  that  it  comes  directly  from 
the  experiences  of  men  and  women,  in  the  immediate 
affairs  of  life.  Language,  as  Walt  Whitman  says,  "  is 
something  arising  out  of  the  work,  needs,  ties,  joys,  affec- 
tions, tastes,  of  long  generations  of  humanity,  and  has 
its  bases  broad  and  low,  close  to  the  ground.  Its  final 
decisions  are  made  by  the  masses,  people  nearest  the 


CONCLUSION  329 

concrete,  having  most  to  do  with  actual  land  and 
sea." 

Each  of  these  three  tendencies  of  English  speech  has 
its  appropriate  uses.  They  are  three  kinds  of  arrows 
with  which  different  speakers  at  different  moments 
strive  to  hit  the  mark  of  good  English.  To  hit  the  mark 
of  the  serious  literary  style,  one  does  not  use  the  arrow 
of  the  obviously  colloquial  speech,  and  still  less  of 
popular  speech.  To  hit  the  mark  in  colloquial  conver- 
sation, one  does  not  use  the  arrow  of  the  formal  speech, 
nor,  among  cultivated  persons,  of  the  popular  speech, 
unless  indeed  one  is  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  the  usages 
are  regarded  as  popular  by  the  person  whom  one  is 
addressing.  The  popular  speech  naturally  does  not 
often  come  into  conflict  with  the  colloquial  speech  of 
polite  conversation,  or  with  the  formal  speech,  since  the 
characteristic  of  the  popular  speaker  is  his  ignorance  of 
the  other  forms  of  speech.  For  the  same  reason  the 
speech  of  polite  conversation  does  not,  and  need  not, 
adapt  itself  to  the  popular  speech  when  speakers  of  the 
two  kinds  come  into  contact  with  each  other.  Other- 
wise it  is  assumed  "that  a  man  of  taste  and  ability  will 
modify  his  use  of  language  to  meet  the  special  require- 
ments of  the  task  proposed.  He  will  have  learned  by 
study  to  distinguish  between  different  tones  and  values 
in  the  instrument  of  speech,  and  will  have  acquired  by 
exercise  the  power  of  touching  that  mighty  organ  of  ex- 
pression to  various  issues." l 

It  thus  appears,  if  the  above  statements  are  true,  that 
language  which  may  be  adequately  expressive,  and 
therefore  good,  under  one  set  of  circumstances,  under  a 

*  Symonds,  Essays,  Speculative  and  Suggestive,  Vol.  I,  p.  267. 


330  MODERN  ENGLISH 

different  set  of  circumstances  becomes  inadequately  ex- 
pressive, because  it  says  more  or  less  than  the  speaker 
intended,  and  so  becomes  bad  English.  One  learns  thus 
the  lesson  of  the  complete  relativity  of  the  value  of  lan- 
guage, that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  an  absolute  English, 
but  that  language  is  valuable  only  as  it  effects  the  pur- 
pose one  wishes  to  attain,  that  what  is  good  at  one  time 
may  be  bad  at  another,  and  what  is  bad  at  one  time  may 
be  good  at  another. 

But  something  further  must  be  said  about  that  tend- 
ency of  English  which  results  in  what  is  known  as  the 
conventional,  or  standard,  English.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  discuss  here  why  mankind  strives  to  formulate  cus- 
toms and  habits  into  a  fixed  system.  The  fact  itself  is 
obvious.  Through  this  natural  instinct,  as  we  may  call 
it,  in  all  our  social  customs,  of  daily  manners,  of  dress, 
of  morals,  of  speech,  more  or  less  regularized  systems  of 
conduct  grow  up.  In  language,  each  community, 
whether  it  is  large  or  small,  has  a  general  understanding 
that  this  or  that  pronunciation,  or,  this  or  that  rule  of 
grammar,  is  the  accepted  standard,  or  conventional,  one. 
This  general  understanding  is  arrived  at  in  a  purely  vol- 
untary, and  often  at  first  unconscious,  way.  Nobody 
imposes,  nobody  has  the  power  to  impose,  any  rules  of 
standard  speech  on  a  community.  As  we  have  before 
pointed  out,  a  rule  is  merely  the  statement  of  the  general 
custom  of  a  community.  We  might,  consequently, 
speak  of  the  standard  popular,  the  standard  colloquial, 
and  the  standard  literary  speech  of  this  or  that  geo- 
graphical community.  Usually,  however,  the  term  is 
understood  in  a  somewhat  more  limited  sense.  It  is 
used  to  signify  not  merely  the  customary  use  of  a  com- 


CONCLUSION  331 

munity,  but  especially  that  use  when  it  is  recognized  and 
acknowledged  as  the  good  use  of  that  community.  Any 
usage  which  is  thus  given  its  patent  of  respectability  is 
regarded  as  standard  use.  It  is  customary  use  raised  to 
the  position  of  conscious  legalized  use.  Of  course  the 
question  of  standard  does  not  arise  until  there  is  some 
conflict  of  standards.  As  in  the  case  of  civil  law,  no 
customary  practice  is  legalized,  or  standardized,  until 
doubts  are  raised  with  respect  to  it,  until  some  one 
attempts  to  depart  from  the  customary  practice.  Then 
it  is  necessary  to  come  to  some  agreement  as  to  what 
shall  be  recognized  as  the  accepted  practice.  In  the 
case  of  civil  law  this  is  done  either  through  the  passing 
of  a  formal  law  by  some  legislative  body,  or  through  the 
decisions  handed  down  by  judges  in  passing  upon  dis- 
puted cases  of  customary  and  accepted  practice  in  the 
dealings  of  men  with  each  other.  In  matters  of  language 
the  legal  or  standard  practice  cannot  be  so  easily  deter- 
mined. Owing  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  legislative 
body  in  language,  no  specified  court  of  appeal,  there  is 
occasionally  lack  of  agreement  as  to  what  shall  and  what 
shall  not  be  recognized  as  the  accepted  use  of  the 
language.  The  government  of  the  language  is  not  as 
fully  and  as  definitely  organized  as  is  the  government  of 
the  business  and  other  overt  acts  of  men.  In  many 
instances,  or  rather  in  most  instances,  there  is  unanimity 
of  opinion,  and  then  we  have  an  unquestioned  and 
general  standard  use.  The  great  body  of  English  usage 
is  thus  made  up  of  forms  of  language  with  respect  to 
which  there  is  practically  no  difference  of  opinion. 
Sometimes,  however,  due  to  various  causes,  such  as  the 
souring  together  of  two  speakers  from  two  different  geo- 


332  MODERN  ENGLISH 

graphical  or  social  speech  communities,  instances  occur 
in  which  there  arises  difference  of  opinion.  In  one  com- 
munity or  one  group,  he  dorit,  or  these  kind  of  people,  or 
/  will,  for  the  future,  will  be  accepted  as  the  conven- 
tional, standard  speech  of  the  community.  When  they 
are  used  in  this  community  or  this  group,  they  express 
their  thought  completely,  and  carry  with  them  no  con- 
notation to  the  discredit  of  the  speaker.  In  another 
geographical  community,  or  by  certain  speakers  within 
a  community,  these  usages  will  be  condemned  as  not 
Standard,  therefore  as  not  satisfactorily  expressive,  and 
consequently  as  "  wrong"  or  "incorrect."  Who  shall 
decide  ?  Nothing  can  decide  but  the  observation  of  cus- 
tom. What  is  defended  as  customary  use  by  a  commu- 
nity, or  even  by  a  single  speaker,  to  carry  the  matter  to 
its  final  analysis,  is  standard,  or  conventional,  or  "  right," 
or  "correct,"  in  that  community  or  for  that  speaker. 
The  question  of  correctness  and  incorrectness,  that  is,  of 
standard,  can  only  arise  when  a  conflict  of  opinion  arises, 
and  this  conflict  can  only  be  decided  by  such  an  exten- 
sion of  the  field  of  observation  of  customary  use,  on  the 
particular  question,  as  will  determine  finally  what  the 
true  custom  is.  That  this  is  often  a  difficult  matter  is 
not  to  be  denied ;  it  is,  however,  only  one  of  the  many 
ways  in  which  man  is  driven  to  an  observation  of  his  sur- 
roundings and  to  a  continual  adaption  of  his  conduct  to 
these  surroundings.  The  importance  of  standard  speech 
for  the  welfare  of  the  community  should  also  be  recog- 
nized. It  is  only  by  the  acceptance  of  general  custom 
that  speech  can  be  made  effective  at  all,  and  it  is  every 
speaker's  duty  to  follow  the  best  custom  of  the  speech 
as  he  views  it.  Not  idiosyncrasy,  not  singularity,  should 


CONCLUSION  333 

be  the  ideal  in  speech,  but  a  wise  adjustment  to  and  har- 
mony with  the  general  custom  of  the  speech. 

Standard,  and  in  that  sense  conventional  and  "  cor- 
rect," English  is  consequently  not  altogether  the  same 
thing  as  good  English.  We  have  said  that  standard 
English  is  the  customary  use  of  a  community  when  it  is 
recognized  and  accepted  as  the  customary  use  of  the 
community.  Beyond  this,  however,  is  the  larger  field 
of  good  English,  any  English  that  justifies  itself  by  ac- 
complishing its  end,  by  hitting  the  mark.  It  is  plain 
that  standard  English  must  continually  refresh  itself  by 
accepting  the  creations  of  good  English.  It  has  always 
been  so  in  the  past,  and  so  it  is  in  the  present.  If  the 
standardizing  tendency  were  carried  to  its  fullest  extent, 
it  would  result  in  a  complete  fixity  of  language.  If  by 
following  standard  use  one  should  have  to  follow  custo- 
mary use,  it  is  plain  that  there  could  be  no  place  in  the 
standard  speech  for  innovation  —  all  would  be  summed 
up  in  the  simple  formula,  Follow  custom.  Language 
would  thus  soon  cease  to  be  positively  expressive;  it 
would  soon  come  to  have  no  more  personal  value  than 
an  algebraic  formula.  But  fortunately  the  standardizing 
tendency  can  never  be  carried  out  to  its  completest  de- 
velopment, and  opposed  to  it,  or  at  least  complementing 
it,  will  always  be  the  ideal  of  good  English  in  the 
broadest  sense  of  the  words.  All  that  the  standardizing 
tendency  can  do  is  to  fix  a  vague  and  general  outline  of 
the  language.  This  indeed  is  necessary  and  valuable 
to  prevent  a  complete  chaos  of  pronunciation,  of  vocabu- 
lary, and  of  grammar.  But  within  these  vague  limits 
there  is  broad  freedom.  Poets  and  prose  writers,  lively 
imaginations  of  all  kinds,  in  speech  as  in  literature,  are 


334  MODERN  ENGLISH 

continually  widening  the  bounds  of  the  conventional  and 
standard  language  by  adding  to  it  something  that  was 
not  there  before.  They  must  do  so  if  speech  is  ever  to 
rise  above  the  dead  level  of  the  commonplace.  "  Justice 
of  perception  consists  in  knowing  how  and  when  and 
where  to  deviate  from  the  beaten  track."  But  deviation 
there  must  be,  and  the  persons  who  attain  an  individual 
style  in  the  use  of  language  are  those  who  seize  their  op- 
portunities as  they  present  themselves.  To  them  the 
prime  and  necessary  virtue  in  language  is  expressive- 
ness, and,  as  complementing  this,  there  should  corre- 
spond on  the  part  of  the  hearer  or  reader  the  willingness 
to  receive  the  expression  as  fully  as  it  was  intended. 
Again,  however,  we  insist  on  the  continual  application 
of  the  test  of  good  English  —  it  must  be  satisfactorily 
expressive.  If  it  does  not  justify  itself  by  accomplish- 
ing its  purpose,  if  it  shocks  the  prejudices,  or  the  tradi- 
tions, of  the  person  to  whom  it  is  directed,  or  if  it  be 
unintelligible,  if  in  any  way  it  fails  to  secure  a  satis- 
factory and  unhindered  transmission  of  the  thought, 
then  to  the  extent  of  this  failure  it  is  bad  English.  And 
it  is  bad  not  because  it  has  failed  to  satisfy  any  con- 
dition of  theoretical,  ideal  excellence,  any  notions  of 
standard,  but  because  in  the  actual  practice  of  the  art  of 
language  it  has  failed  to  produce  the  result  for  which 
that  art  exists. 


APPENDIX 

The  Old  English  Chronicle,  Laud,  636. 

The  manuscript  of  which  the  opening  page  is  repro- 
duced above  was  written  in  the  early  part  of  the  twelfth 
century.  This  is  of  course  relatively  late  in  the  Old  Eng- 
lish period.  Owing,  however,  to  the  literary  conserva- 
tism of  the  writers  and  compilers  of  the  Chronicle,  the 
English  which  we  have  here  differs  little  in  style  of 
handwriting  and  in  the  forms  of  language  from  the 
English  of  the  two  centuries  preceding.  The  trans- 
cription of  this  passage,  with  interlinear  translation,  is 
as  follows: 

Of  Britain      the  island       is         eight       hundred    of  miles      long 

1  Brittene       igland       is       ehta       hund       mila       lang 

two      hundred    broad  here        are  this 

2  and1      twa      hund     brad.      And     her     sind     on     pis 

island          five          languages         English  British 

3  iglande       fif        gepeode,       englisc        and        brittisc 

Welsh  Scotch  Pictish 

4  and       wilsc       and       scyttisc       and       pyhtisc      and 

Latin                   First          were  inhabitants  of  this  land 

5  bocleden.2          Erest     weron  bugend  pises  landes 
the  British     These       came       from  Armorica  settled 

6  brittes.         pa      coman      of  armenia8  and  gesaetan 

southward         Britain        first.      Then    befell         it      that      the 

7  suttewearde  bryttene  serost.     pa  gelamp   hit    paet*  pyh- 
Picts    came  from  the  south  from  Scithia  (?)  with      long  ships 

8  tas  coman      supan       of  Scithian  mid  languor*  scipum 
not        many  they    came        first       to    north     Hibernia 

9  na  manegum.    And  pa  coman  aerost  on  norp  ybernian 

there    asked     the  Irish        they  there  might     dwell       But 

10  up,  and  pser  baedon*  scottas7  paet  hi  Ser  moston  wunian.    ac 
they  would  not  them    permit        for       they    said         the    Irish 

11  hi  noldan  heom  lyfan,   forftan  hi  cwaedon,  pa  scotfca* 


886  MODERN  ENGLISH 

you    may          tho  counsel    teach  know 

12  we  eow  magon  peah  hwaSere8  raed  gelaeron.     We  witan 
another    island    here    to    the  east  ye      may       dwell         if 

13  oper  egland  her  be  easton.     per  ge  magon  eardian,  gif 

will  any  one  you  opposes  assist 

14  ge  willaS.     And  gif  hwa  eow  wiftstent,  we  eow  fultumiaft 

may         conquer.      Then  fared 

15  J>aet  ge  hit  magon  gegangan.     Da  ferdon  pa  pihtas  and  ge- 
acquired  northwards  southwards        it     had 

16  ferdon  pis  land  norpanweard,  and  supanweard  hit  hef- 

the  British  as        before   said  for  themselves 

17  don  brittas,  swa  we  aer  cwedon.     And  pa  pyhtas  heom 
obtained  wives  of  the  Irish        the  condition  would  choose  their 

18  abaedon  wif  aet  scottum  on  pa  gerad  paet  hi  gecuron  heora 

royal-kin    ever          woman  side  they  held         so      long 

19  kyne  cinn  aa  on  pa  wif  healfa.     paet  hi  heoldon  swa  lange 
afterwards  then     befell      it    after    of  years  the  course 

20  sySSan.    And  pa  gelamp  hit  imbe   geara     rina,       paet 
of  the  Irish   some  deal  went    from  Hibernia  to     Britain          there 

21  scotta  sum  dael  gewat  of  ybernian  on  brittene  and  per  Ian- 
land  some  deal  conquered  was    their      leader      Reoda  call- 

22  des  sum  dael  geeodon.     And  wes  heora  heratoga  reoda  ge- 

ed  this  one  they   are         named          Daelreodi         Six- 

23  haten.     From  pam  heo  sind  genemnode  daelreodi.     Six- 

ty     winters     ere  that         Christ    was      born         Gaius  Julius 

24  tigum  wintrum  aer  pam  pe  criste  were  acenned,  gaius  iulius 
of  the  Romans  caesar  with  eighty       ships  sought  (i.e.,  visited) 

25  romana  kasere  mid  hund  ehtatigum  scipum     gesohte 
Britain  was      first          afflicted       with        grim 

26  brytene.     per  he   wes   aerost  geswenced  mid  grimmum 

battle  much    of  his  army     he  led  astray  then 

27  gefeohte  and  micelne  his  heres     forlaedde.     And  pa  he 

1  and.  The  manuscript  has  here,  as  frequently,  an  abbreviation  for 
the  conjunction.  2  bocleden.  Literally  "book-Latin,"  meaning  the 
Latin  of  the  learned  classes.  8  armenia.  The  manuscript  reading  must 
be  a  mistake  for  Armorica,  on  the  Continent.  *  potf.  Here  again,  as 
frequently,  the  conjunction  ])cet  is  abbreviated  by  giving  only  the  first  let- 
ter. 6  langum.  The  manuscript  writes  langu,  but  the  stroke  over  the 
M  indicates  an  abbreviation.  6  bcedon.  The  manuscript  has  bcedo,  the 
n  being  omitted  by  mistake.  7  scottas.  The  Scotch  in  the  early  periods 
of  English  history  were  the  inhabitants  of  Ireland  or  Hibernia. 
8  Ipeah  hwaftere.  Equivalent  to  "however/'  altho  literally  the  words 
are  "  tho  whether." 


APPENDIX  337 

In  order  to  indicate  the  relatively  fixed  or  "  classic  " 
character  of  the  language  of  the  Old  English  period,  it 
may  be  interesting  to  point  out  the  forms  of  this  text  as 
they  would  have  been  given  two  hundred  years  before 
the  time  at  which  the  text  was  written.  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  the  changes  are  comparatively  few  in  num- 
ber and  in  themselves  not  very  striking.  In  line  1,  ehta 
would  probably  have  been  written  eahta  ;  in  1.  5,  erest 
and  weron  would  have  been  cerest  and  wceron;  in  1.  6, 
Brittes  would  have  been  Brittas,  as  it  is  in  1.  1 7 ;  in  the 
same  line,  coman  and  gescetan  would  have  been  comon  and 
gesceton.  By  the  time  of  this  text,  however,  there  was 
already  entering  some  feeling  of  uncertainty  with  respect 
to  the  vowels  of  unstressed  syllables.  In  1. 11,/orSaw  in 
earlier  Old  English  would  have  been  forftam ;  in  1.  16, 
he/don  would  have  been  hcefdon;  in  1.  17,  cwedon  would 
have  been  cwcedon;  in  1.  18,  gecuron,  an  indicative  form, 
would  have  been  gecuren,  an  optative  or  subjunctive 
form;  in  1.  21,  ]>er  would  have  been  ]>cer;  in  1.  22,  wes 
would  have  been  wees,  and  heratoga  would  have  been  here- 
toga,  etc.  These  changes  are  very  rarely  of  sufficient  im- 
portance to  obscure  the  grammatical  relationships  of  the 
words.  In  popular  speech  doubtless  the  changes  were 
much  more  extensive.  The  language  of  the  Chronicle  is 
conservative,  literary  Old  English,  such  as  was  preserved 
in  the  seclusion  of  the  monasteries  and  libraries  of  Eng- 
land. When  this  conservative  literary  culture  was  des- 
troyed by  the  Norman  Conquest  and  its  consequences,  the 
only  English  which  was  left  was  of  course  the  popular,  un- 
literary  English,  in  which  changes  had  taken  place  at  a  much 
more  rapid  rate.  It  is  from  this  popular  English  that  the 
language  of  the  Middle  English  period  is  largely  derived. 


B38  MODERN  ENGLISH 

Chaucer's  Pardoner's  Tale. 
( From  Cambridge  Univ.  MS.  G.  G.  4.  27,  fol.  306.) 

This  manuscript  was  written  in  the  early  part  of  the  fif- 
teenth century,  probably  within  thirty  or  forty  years  after 
Chaucer's  death.  It  was  written  by  a  professional  copy- 
ist and  is  illustrated  by  means  of  a  number  of  drawings 
representing  the  characters  of  The  Canterbury  Tales. 
The  following  is  a  transcription  of  all  except  the  last 
four  lines  of  the  passage  contained  in  our  reproduction : 

Here  begynnyth  the  Pardonner  his  tale. 

In  flanderys  whilhom  dwellede  a  cumpaynye 

Of  yonge  folk  that  hauntedyn  folye, 

As  ryot,  hasard,  stewys,  and  tavernys, 

Where  as  with  harpys,  lutys  and  geternys, 

They  daiwce  and  pleye  at  deis  bothe  day  and  nyght, 

And  ete  and  drynke  also  ovyr  here  mygt, 

Thowe  whiche  they  don  the  deuyl  sacryfise 

With  inne  that  deuyls  temple  in  cursede  wyse, 

By  superfluyte  abominable. 

Here  othis  been  so  greete  and  so  dampnable 

That  it  is  gresely  for  to  here  hem  swere. 

Oure  blyssede  lordis  body  they  to  tere ; 

Hem  thougte  that  Jewis  rente  hym  not  ynough, 

And  eche  of  hem  at  otherys  synwe  lough. 

Letters  which  in  the  MS.  are  indicated  by  an  abbrevia- 
tion, usually  a  stroke  above  or  below  the  place  in  which 
the  letters  belong,  are  printed  here  in  italics.  The  capi- 
tal I  of  the  first  word  is  part  of  the  decoration.  The 
following  is  a  literal  translation  of  this  passage  : 

In  Flanders  whilom  dwelt  a  company 

Of  young  folk  who  practiced  (haunted)  folly, 


APPENDIX  339 

As  riot,  hasard  (gambling),  brothels  and  taverns, 

Where  with  harps,  lutes  and  guitars, 

They  dance  and  play  at  dice  both  day  and  night, 

And  eat  and  drink,  also,  over  their  might, 

Through  which  they  do  the  devil  sacrifice 

Within  the  devils  temple,  in  cursed  wise, 

By  abominable  superfluity. 

Their  oaths  are  so  great  and  damnable 

That  it  is  grisly  to  hear  them  swear. 

Our  blessed  Lord's  body  they  dismember  ( to  tere ) ; 

It  seemed  to  them  (Hem  thougte)  the  Jews  rent  him  not 

enough, 
And  each  of  them  at  the  others  sin  laughed. 

A.  phonetic  transcription  of  the  passage  is  as  follows : 

In  flanderz  hwilom  dweled  a  kumpenia 

Of  yurja  folk  Sat  hdntedin  folia, 

Az  riot,  hazard,  stSwas  and  tavernas, 

hwer  az  wip  harpas,  lutas  and  geternas, 

Se  dens  and  pie  at  des  bop  d§  and  niht, 

and  et  and  drink  als'  6vir  hera  mint 

pur  hwi£  Se  don  Sa  devil  sakrifiza 

wip  in  Sat  devils  tempi'  in  kursed  wiza, 

bi  superfluity  abominable. 

hSr  6Sas  ben  so  gret  and  so  dampnabla, 

Sat  it  is  gr§sli  for  to  he"r  hem  swera. 

ur  blised  Lerdis  bodi  Se  totera  ; 

hem  puht  Sat  j§wis  rent  him  net  inuh, 

and  §£  of  hem  at  6Serz  sina  luh. 

The  First  Folio  of  Suakspere. 

( Merchant  of  Venice,  IV,  i,  119-152.) 

The  First  Folio  of  Shakspere  was  printed  in  the  year 
1623.     The  text  of  the  Merchant  of  Venice  in  the  First 


840  MODERN  ENGLISH 

Folio,  which  was  the  first  collected  edition  of  Shak- 
spere's  plays  and  which  was  made  up  mainly  from  earlier 
editions  of  the  separate  plays,  was  taken  from  a  quarto 
edition  published  in  the  year  1600.  Our  passage  repre- 
sents, consequently,  the  form  which  printed  literature 
took  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
Some  of  the  spellings  are  noteworthy.  In  1.  122,  bank- 
rout  represents  the  older  spelling  of  the  word,  following 
French  banqueroute,  from  which  it  was  borrowed ;  our 
modern  spelling  bankrupt  was  due  to  the  desire  to  indi- 
cate the  ultimate  etymology  of  the  second  element,  from 
Latin  ruptus,  "broken."  Shakspere  probably  pronounced 
no  p  in  the  word.  In  1.  123,  soale  and  soule  are  spelt  dif- 
ferently because  there  was  a  slight  difference  in  pronuncia- 
tion, great  enough  to  justify  the  differing  othography  but 
not  too  great  to  make  the  pun  seem  forced.  In  Modern 
English  sole  and  soul  are  not  distinguishable  in  sound, 
altho  the  spelling  still  indicates  that  they  are  of  differ- 
ent etymological  origin.  Note  the  cumbersome  spelling, 
such  as  keene,  mettall,  axe,  beare,  dogge,  etc.  The  spell- 
ing dog,  beside  Shakspere's  dogge,  offers  an  argument  for 
the  modern  spelling  eg  instead  of  egg.  Other  words  of 
this  group  have  undergone  the  change,  earlier  begg,  legg 
or  begge,  legge,  etc.,  simplifying  to  beg,  leg,  etc.  Instead 
of  inexecrable,  1. 128,  many  editors  read  inexorable.  Note 
the  inconsistent  use  of  capital  letters  in  the  passage. 


Autograph  of  Milton's  Lycidas,  11.165-193. 

This  passage  from  Milton's  Lycidas  is  reproduced  from 
a  facsimile  of  the  manuscript  of  Milton's  minor  poems 
preserved  in  the  Library  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge. 


APPENDIX  341 

A  literal  transcription  of  the  passage  is  as  follows,  words 
crossed  out  by  Milton  being  printed  in  italics : 

LYCIDAS. 

1  Weepe  no  more  wofull  shepherds  weepe  no  mor« 

2  for  Lycidas  yor  sorrow  is  not  dead 

3  sunck  though  he  be  beneath  the  watrie  floare 

4  so  sinks  the  day  starre  in  the  Ocean  bed 

5  &  yet  anon  repairs  his  drooping  head. 

6  and  tricks  his  beams  &  wth  newspangled  ore 

7  flams  in  the  forhead  of  ye  morning  skie 

8  so  Lycidas  sunk  low  but  mounted  high  high 

9  through  the  deare  might  of  him  that  walkt  ye 

waves : 

10  where  other  groves  and  other  streams  along 

11  w*11  nectar  pure  pure  his  oozie  locks  he  laves 

12  SibesxeB  listening  the  unexpressive  nuptiall  song 

13  in  the  blest  kingdoms  meek  of  joy  &  love 

14  there  entertaine  him  all  the  Ste  above 

15  in  sollemne  troops,  and  sweet  societies 

16  that  sing,  &  singing  in  thire  glorie  move 

17  and  wipe  the  teares  for  ever  fro  his  eyes 

18  now  Lycidas  the  shepherds  weepe  no  more 

19  henceforth  thou  art  the  Genius  of  ye  shoare 

20  in  thy  large  recompence,  &  shalt  be  good 

21  to  all  that  wander  in  that  perilous  flood 

22  Thus  sung  the  uncouth  swaine  to  th'  oakes  &  rills 

23  while  ye  still  morne  went  out  wth  sandals  gray 

24  he  toucht  the  tender  stops  of  various  quills 

25  wtb  eager  thought  warbling  his  Dorick  lay 

26  and  now  the  Sun  had  stretcht  out  all  the  hills 

27  and  now  was  dropt  into  westren  the  wester'n  bay 

28  at  last  he  rose  and  twitcht  his  mantle  blew 

29  To  morrow  to  fresh  woods  and  pasturs  new 


342  MODERN   ENGLISH 

Note  the  persistence  of  numerous  awkward  and  un- 
economical spellings  in  Milton's  usage,  e.  g.,  1.  1,  weepe, 
wofull ;  1.  3,  sunck,  watrie,  floare ;  1.  4,  starr ;  1. 10,  deare ; 
1.  12,  heares,  nuptiall ;  1.  15,  sollemne ;  1.  23,  oakes,  etc. 
On  the  other  hand,  note  how  Milton,  with  his  free  atti- 
tude towards  spelling,  spells  phonetically  when  he  is  so 
inclined,  e.  g.,  1.  10,  walkt ;  1.  25,  toucht ;  1.  27,  stretcht ; 
1.  28,  blew,  to  rime  with  new. 

In  line  2,  yor  is  an  abbreviation  for  your,  as  in  line  6, 
w01  for  with)  in  line  14,  Sts  for  Saints,  and  line  17,  fro 
for  from.  In  line  7  ye  is  for  the,  the  symbol  y  being 
used  instead  of  the  older  thorn,  J>,  the  Old  English  repre- 
sentative of  th.  Of  course  Milton  always  pronounced 
this  word  as  the  not  as  ye,  as  is  sometimes  done  by  those 
who  are  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  y  is  merely  an 
orthographic  substitution  for  the  older  p. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

This  Bibliography  gives  the  titles  of  only  one  or  two 
representative  works  under  each  head.  The  books  named 
are  such  as  will  be  found  most  useful  to  the  student 
whose  special  interests  are  in  English. 

1.  General  Treatises  on  Language  : 

Strong,  Logemann  and  Wheeler,  History  of  Language, 
New  York,  1891.  This  work  is  an  adaptation  and 
translation  of  Paul's  Principien  der  Sprachgeschichte. 

Sweet,  Henry,  The  History  of  Language,  The  Macmil- 
lan  Co. ,  London,  1900.  One  of  the  Temple  Primers ; 
a  brief  but  authoritative  review  of  the  subject. 

2.  English  Origins  and  Institutions  : 

Chadwick,  H.  Munro,  The  Origin  of  the  English  Nation, 
Cambridge,  Cambridge  University  Press,  1907. 

Dale,  E. ,  National  Life  and  Character  in  the  Mirror  of 
Early  English  Literature,  Cambridge,  Cambridge 
University  Press,  1907. 

Gummere,  F.  B.,  Germanic  Origins,  New  York,  1892. 

3.  General  Histories  of  the  English  Language : 

Lounsbury,  T.  K.,  History  of  the  English  Language,  Re- 
vised Edition,  New  York,  1901. 

Emerson,  O.  F.,  The  History  of  the  English  Language, 
New  York,  1897.  In  briefer  form  also  as  A  Brief 
History,  etc.,  1900. 

Toller,  T.  N.,  Outlines  of  the  History  of  the  English 
Language,  New  York,  1900. 

Bradley,  Henry,  The  Making  of  English^  New  York, 
1904. 


344  MODERN   ENGLISH 

Jespersen,  Otto,  Growth  and  Structure,  of  the  English 
Language,  Leipzig,  B.  G.  Teubner,  1905. 

Wyld,  H.  C.,  The  Historical  Study  of  the  Mother  Tongue, 
New  York,  1906.  This  book  devotes  most  of  its  space 
to  phonetics  and  to  the  changes  in  the  spoken  form 
of  the  language. 

Greenough  and  Kittredge,  Words  and  their  Ways  in 
English  Speech,  New  York,  1901.  This  book  treats 
mostly  of  words,  but  it  illustrates  in  its  discussions 
many  of  the  general  principles  of  growth  in  language. 

4,  English  Grammars : 

Sweet,  Henry,  A  New  English  Grammar,  two  parts, 
Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1892,  1898. 

Matzner,  Eduard,  Englische  Grammatik,  two  volumes, 
3d  ed.,  1880-1885.     Translated  into  English  from 
an  earlier  edition  by  C.  J.  Grece,  London,  1874. 

Kaluza,  Max,  Historische  Grammatik  der  Englischen 
Sprache,  two  parts,  Berlin,  Emil  Felber,  1906-1907. 

Horn,  W.,  Historische  neu-englische  Grammatik,  Strass- 
burg,  1908. 

Poutsma,  H.,  A  Grammar  of  Late  Modern  English,  for 
the  use  of  Continental,  especially  Dutch,  Students,  two 
parts,  Groningen,  P.  Noordhoff,  1904-1905.  This 
grammar  is  written  in  English,  and  is  valuable  to 
English  readers  for  its  large  number  of  illustrations 
from  contemporary  English. 

Among  the  numerous  shorter  treatises  the  following 
may  be  noted  :  Morris,  Historical  Outlines  of  Eng- 
lish Accidence  (  1896  ) ;  Whitney,  Essentials  of  Eng- 
lish Grammar;  Abbott,  A  Shakespearian  Grammar; 
Kellner,  Historical  Outlines  of  English  Syntax;  and 
for  a  general  discussion  of  the  methods  and  aims  in  the 
teaching  of  grammar,  see  Carpenter,  Baker  and  Scott, 
The  Teaching  of  English,  New  York,  Longmans, 
Green  and  Co.,  1903. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  845 

5.  English  Dictionaries,  in  the  order  of  their  completeness  and 

reliability  as  works  of  scholarly  reference  : 

New  English  Dictionary,  also  called  The  Oxford  Dic- 
tionary, and  sometimes  from  the  name  of  its  general 
editor,  Murray's  Dictionary.  This  work,  which  is  now 
nearing  completion,  is  written  on  historical  principles 
and  in  the  light  of  the  best  scholarship  of  modern 
times.  It  is  a  work  of  reference  for  the  scholar,  not 
the  general  public.  It  is  published  at  the  Clarendon 
Press,  Oxford ;  the  first  volume  appeared  in  1888, 
and  it  is  now  (1908)  in  the  letter  R  and  in  its  eighth 
volume. 

The  Century  Dictionary,  and  Encyclopedic  Lexicon  of 
the  English  Language,  The  Century  Company,  New 
York  (copyright,  1889),  in  six  volumes. 

The  Standard  Dictionary,  Funk  and  Wagnalls,  New 
York,  two  volumes. 

Webster's  International  Dictionary  of  the  English  Lan- 
guage, Springfield,  Mass.,  G.  and  C.  Merriam  Com- 
pany, 1904,  one  vol. 

Skeat,  W.  W.,  A  Concise  Etymological  Dictionary  of 
the  English  Language,  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1901. 
This  is  the  best  of  the  various  forms  of  Professor 
Skeat's  Dictionary  and  is  a  convenient  and  inexpen- 
sive work  of  reference. 

6.  English  Sounds : 

Sweet,  H.,  History  of  English  Sounds,  Oxford,  1888. 
This  is  the  most  elaborate  study  of  English  sounds 
that  has  so  far  appeared.  More  elementary  and  deal- 
ing more  with  present  English  are  the  following  two 
works,  also  by  Mr.  Sweet. 

,       The  Sounds  of  English,  Oxford,  1908. 

,      A  Primer  of  Spoken  English,  Oxford,  1900. 

Victor,  Elements  of  Phonetics,  English,  French^  and 
German,  translated  and  adapted  by  Walter  Bipp- 


346  MODERN  ENGLISH 

mann,  London,  J.  M.  Dent  &  Co.,  1899.  This  is  an 
adaptation  of  the  work  of  Professor  Victor  entitled 
Kleine  Phonetik,  Leipzig,  2d  ed.,  1901. 
Skeat,  W.  W.,  A  Primer  of  Classical  and  English 
Philology,  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1905.  This 
book  treats  of  English  sounds  from  the  point  of  -view 
of  the  relationship  of  English  to  other  languages  and 
from  the  point  of  view  of  English  etymology.  The 
various  general  histories  and  grammars  of  the  Eng- 
lish language  all  treat  of  English  sounds  more  or 
less  fully.  Attention  may  be  called  especially  to 
H.  C.  Wyld's  Historical  Study  of  the  Mother  Tongue, 
mentioned  above. 


INDEXES 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


[The  numbers  refer  to  pages  ] 


a,  different  pronunciations  of,  118-119, 

131-134 

Absolute  possessives,  87-88 
Accent,  50, 142-150, 199 
Adjective,  twofold  declension  of,  49-50 
Adveibs,    various   forms   of,    71-72, 

309-311 
^Ethelred,  28 
^Ethelstan,  28 
Alcuin,  215 
Aldhelm,  215 
Alfred,  23,  27,  215 
Alphabet,  relation  to  sounds,  113-115 , 

phonetic  alphabet,  115-122;  reform 

of,  174-176 
Angles,  20-21 
Anglo-Saxons,  their  conquest  of  Bri 

tain,  19-22;  Arthur's  battles  against, 

20;  civilization  of,  23-27;  jewelry 

and  embroidery  made  by,  27 
Apostrophe,  origin  of,  86-87 
Arthur,  20 

Artificial  language,  40-48 
Ascham,  Roger,  245 
Augumenting  the  English  vocabulary, 

theory  of,  235-248 
Augustine,  23 

Barrie,  J.  M.,  284 

Bede,  215,  251 

Beowulf,  24 

Berners,  translation  of  Froissart,  252 

Blickling  Homilies,  251 

Britain,  origin  of  name,  15-16 

Browne,  Sir  Thomas,  276-277 

Brut,  226 

Caedmon,  24 

Carlyle,  his  etymologies,  262  and  note 

Caxton,  William,  236-241,  252 


Celtic  words  in  English,  212-214 

Celts,  15-16;  in  Gaul,  18 

Chaucer,  13,  35,  80,  81,  140,  152,  153, 

193, 195,  200, 225,  230,  232,  241, 251, 

338-339 

Cheke,  Sir  John,  245 
China,  use  of  English  in,  38 
Chinese,  words  borrowed  from,  258 
Chronicle,  Old  English,  26,  335-337 
Cicero,  234,  251 

Classification  of  languages,  44-48 
Cnut,  28 
Coleridge,  196 

Colloquial  English,  149-154,  327 
Composition,  56-59, 187-193 
Concord,  value  of  in  modern  English, 

304-308 

Consonants,  classification  of,  109-110 
Conventional  English,  325-326 
Copulative  verbs,  311-313 
Counter  words  as  slang,  202-205 
Cursor  Mundi,  224 
Custom  in  speech,  6-7,  124-125,  154- 

166,  325-334 
Cynewulf,  24 

Dangling  participles,  309 

Danish  invasions,  27-28 

Davies,  Sir  John,  194 

Defoe,  195 

Democracy,  speech  of,  7-8 

Dialect,  139-141 

Dictionaries,  their  authority,  162-167, 

173-174 
Differentiation  in  meanings  of  words, 

186-211 
Dutch,  words  borrowed  from,  258 

Early  South  English  Legendary,  38 
Echoic  words,  185 


350 


INDEX  OF   SUBJECTS 


Edward,  son  of  Alfred,  28 

Edward  the  Confessor,  28,  220-221 

Egbert,  22 

Elyot,  Sir  Thomas,  241-242,  252 

English,  compared  with  German,  53- 
54;  as  a  "grammarless  tongue," 
59-62;  in  Middle  English  period, 
74-75;  as  bilingual  language,  220 

Erasmus,  236 

Esperanto,  40 

Etherege,  Sir  George,  90,  288 

Etymology,  260-267 

Exeter  Book,  26 

Fine  writing,  283-285 

Foreign  plurals,  296 

Formal  grammar,  320-324 

Fox,  George,  92 

Freeman,  E.  H.,  36,  note,  222,  note 

French  words    in   English,   219-233; 

late  borrowings,  253-255 
Function,  how  determined  in  modern 

English,  308-313 
Functional  change,  differentiation  of 

vocabulary  by  means  of,  197-199 
Function  groups,  313-316 

Gallomania,  31 

Gascoigne,  George,  246-247 

Gender,  64  and  note 

German,  English  borrowings  from, 
255-257 

Glanik,  40 

Goethe,  249 

Good  English,  75-77,  325-334 

Gradation,  186-187 

Grammar,  denned,  286;  conservative 
tendency  in,  287-289;  logic  in,  304- 
308;  book  grammar,  320-324 

"  Grand  style,"  276-278 

Greek.  13-14,  46,  236 

Grimm,  Jacob,  50 

Grimm's  Law,  50-53,  99 

Grocyn,  William,  236 

Hardacnut,  28 

Harvey,    Gabriel,  87,  note,  242 

Hengest,  20 

Higden,  Ralph,  224 

Holmes,  O.  W.,  100 


Horsa,  20 
Howell,  194 
Hunt,  Leigh,  132 
Hybrids,  272-274 
Hyphenation,  189 

Idiom,  310-311 

Imitation,  124-139 

Indian,  American,  words  borrowed 
from,  258 

Indian,  East,  words  borrowed  from, 
258 

Indo-European  family  of  languages, 
44-47 

Inflection,  nature  of,  56-59;  in  Old 
English  period,  62-74;  in  Middle 
English  period,  74-83  ;  in  the  Mod- 
ern English  period,  83-98,  289-296 ; 
substitution  in,  80-94;  profit  and 
loss  in  inflectional  development,  94- 
98 ;  synthesis  and  analysis,  94-96  ; 
changes  in  modern  period,  289-297. 

Inkhorn  terms,  242-248 

Italian,  words  borrowed  from,  257-21$ 

Japan,  use  of  English  in,  38 
Johnson,  Dr.,  172,  268,  271,  285 
Junian  manuscript,  26 
Jutes,  20-21 

Kipling,  R.,  192 

Lamb,  Charles,  278 

Language,  history  of,  3  ;  function  of, 
4  ;  as  social  custom,  5-7  ;  of  a  dem- 
ocracy, 7-8  ;  degeneration  and 
progress  in,  6-7  ;  language  and 
education,  8-9  ;  literary  and  spoken 
language,  10-14,  149-154,  327-323; 
universal  and  artificial,  37-43  ;  clas- 
sification of,  44-48;  synthetic  and 
analytic,  94-96  ;  laws  of,  123-125 

Larynx,  102-104 

Latimer,  William,  236 

Latin,  words  borrowed  from,  212,  21 4- 
217 

Latinists,  244 

Law  in  language,  50-51, 123-125, 151- 
152,  330-334 

Layamon,  226 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


351 


Liaison,  148-149 
Lily,  William,  236 
Linacre,  Thomas,  236 
Literary  English,  327-328 
Lowell,  J.  R.,  139,  199,  284 

Mala}*,  words  from,  258 

Metaphor,  differentiation  of  meaning 

by,  193-197 

Milton,  J43,  165,  340-342 
Mixed  syntax,  316-320 
Moliere,  14 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  236 
Mutation  plurals,  66-67 

Nasal  twang,  106 

Nashe,  Thomas,  242 

Newspaper  English,  284 

Norman  Conquest,  28-35  ;  origin  of 
Normans,  29  ;  loss  of  Normandy, 
30  ;  influence  of  Conquest,  34-35  ; 
effect  upon  vocabulary,  221-222 

o,  different  pronunciations  of,  134 
Obscure  compounds,  142-148,  189-191 
Old  English,  use  of  the  term,  22 
Organic  sound  changes,  141-154 
Ormulum,  226 

Parliament,  first  opened  with  English 
speech,  33 

Paris,  university  of,  31 

Pathetic  fallacy,  196 

Pennsylvania  German,  140 

Periods  of  English,  35,  54-55 

Pettie,  G.,  248  and  note 

Philippines,  English  in,  38  and  note; 
words  borrowed  from,  258 

Phonetics,  defined,  101;  phonetic  al- 
phabet and  transcription,  115-122, 
174--176;  phonetic  laws,  123-124 

Pidgin  English,  38 

Polysyllabic  humor,  277-278 

Popular  English,  76, 150-154,  327 

Prayer  Book,  250 

Printing,  influence  of  on  spelling,  172 

Pronunciation,  standard  of,  154-166 

Proportional  elements  of  the  English 
vocabulary,  267-269 

Provincialism  in  speech,  141 


Purity  in  vocabulary,  34,  269-274 
Puttenham,  247 

Quakers,  use  of  thee,  92-93 

Renascence,  233-238 

Resonance  chamber,  104-105 

Riley,  J.  W.,  139 

Robert  of  Gloucester,  224 

Romans,   in  Britain,  16-18;    Roman 

walls,  17 ;  departure  of,  18-19 
Ruskin,  John,  196,  262-263 
Russian,  words  from,  258 

Saxonists,  244 

Saxons,  20-21 

Saxon  shore,  19 

Scandinavian  words  in  English,  817- 
219 

Scientific  vocabulary,  259-260,  278- 
279 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  228-229 

Second  shifting  of  consonants,  54 

Shall  and  will,  293-295 

Shakspere,  13,  90,  140,  161,  194,  800, 
244,  249,  287,  339-340 

Sidney,  Sir  Philip,  244 

Slang",  199-211 

Social  custom,  speech  as,  6-7, 124-125, 
154-166,  325-332 

Sounds,  the  study  of,  99-100;  pro- 
duction of,  101-106;  voiced  and 
voiceless,  106-107;  vowel  and  con« 
sonant,  107-109;  alphabet  and 
sounds,  113-115;  changes  of,  122- 
139 

Spanish,  words  from,  258 

Speech  and  race,  15 

Spelling  reform,  167-182 

Spencer,  Herbert,  270 

Split  infinitive,  298-300 

Standard  English,  154-166,  325-332 

Subjunctive,  use  of,  290 

Substitution,  80-94 

Suffixes,  development  of  meaning  in, 
192-193 

Swinburne,  couplets  in  his  prose,  252 

Talking  through  the  nose,  106 
Tennyson,  Alfred,  164 


352 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Teutonic  languages,  48-50 
Tilly,  William,  236 
Trevisa,  John,  224-225 


u,  different  pronunciations  of,  136-137 
[Jrquhart,  Sir  Thomas,  40 


anbrugh,  90 
Yercelli  Book,  26 
Vergil,  234 
Vocabulary,  clement  of  English,  267- 

268;  purity  of,  269-272 
Voiced  and  voiceless  sounds,  106-107 
Volapuk,  40 


Vortigern,  20 

Vowels,  classification  of,  111-112 

"  Weak  e,"  120 

White,  R.  G.,  132 

William    the  Conqueror,  26,  28-29', 

221-222 

Wilson,  Thomas,  243 
Word-accent,  50,  199 
Word-pairs  in  English,  250-253 
Words,  study  of,   183-184;   creation 

of,  184-186;  meanings  of,  186-211; 

borrowing  of,  211-260;  profit  and 

loss  in  borrowing,  275-283;  order 

of,  297-301 
World  English,  36-40 


INDEX  OF  WORDS 


able,  229 

fattfe,  232 

candle,  215 

adventure,  233 

battle-door,  92,  note 

canoeist,  274 

aeronaut,  255 

6ear,  208 

cap,  232 

aerostat,  255 

beauty,  233 

caprice,  254 

age,  229 

foe/,  228 

captain,  232 

aggravating,  281 

fo/tec/k,  255 

cara/e,  254 

agreeable,  233 

WsAqp,  215 

card,  229 

air,  229 

bismuth,  255 

carew,  254 

£  la  carte,  254 

blackbouler,  255 

carouse,  255 

a/ms,  215 

Wende,  255 

cart,  219 

ambuscade,  258 

6o$rAei,  255 

cartra,  18 

amiable,  233 

6o#ws,  209 

cat,  54 

amucfc,  258 

forif  ,  229 

causeway,  190 

animal,  264 

bombast,  257 

cedar,  216 

anft'c,  199 

6<mws,  264 

cAatr,  229 

antique,  199 

6oom,  185,  258 

cAa7e,  255 

anybody  else's,  316 

ftoo«,  232 

ctarity,  228 

a/?eo:,  264 

ftooze,  208 

cAarm,  233 

apostle,  215 

boule-dogue,  255 

cAarfem,  267 

appendix,  296 

boulingrin,  255 

chastity,  233 

armor,  232 

60*,  194,  216 

chauffeur,  265 

arm*,  232 

6reat&,  32 

cAeese,  216 

as,  320 

breeches,  66 

cAe/,  254 

asparagus,  190 

brigg,  257 

chemist,  273 

asphalt,  190 

brimstone,  190 

cAe^-ui,  296 

a^AetX  273 

JrocJfc,  213 

cAesi,  194 

aim*,  232 

brogue,  214 

Cfterfer,  18 

automobile,  260 

irofl,  231 

cW«a,  197 

awful,  202 

brother,  232 

chivalry,  230 

6w«,  208 

chump,  209 

balance,  281 

6um,  238 

city,  228 

ia/Jas*,  257 

5w/?er,  257 

clan,  214 

bamboozle,  209 

fcw«er,  216 

c/er^y,  232 

bandanna,  258 

J^faw,  198,  218 

cierfc,  165-166,  232 

iandif,  296 

cfoafe,  232 

banner,  232 

eade^,  254 

cloister,  232 

ftanfam,  197 

cahoots,  209 

c/owfi,  257 

&ar»,  190 

caisson,  255 

cZ«6,  255 

baron,  232 

calends,  216 

coat,  232 

barrens,  197 

ca?/,  228 

co6a/«,  255 

iasfc,  249 

calico,  197 

cocfejparrtfi*.  ^ 

base-balhst,  274 

caZZ,  219 

coiffur*,  254 

354 


INDEX  OF   WORDS 


cold,  54 

desperado,  258 

female,  58 

collis,  52 

dessert,  254 

festoon,  254 

colonel,  232 

didoes,  209 

fiancee,  227,  254 

compound,  199 

die,  219 

/erce,  202 

condign,  282 

dine,  231 

fifoclock,  255 

construct,  240,  note 

dinner,  231 

finger,  32 

contortionist,  274 

dipsey,  190 

finish,  257 

contract,  19 

do,  54 

/ord,  258 

onversationalist,  274 

docA;,  258 

/re,  200 

coquet,  254 

do*/,  32,  134-135 

/*,  211,  note 

coracle,  214 

dog-cart,  255 

/zz,  185 

twmw,  51 

dogma,  264 

fiannel,  214 

cottolene,  260 

Doncaster,  18 

/foe,  258 

courage,  233,  254 

douof,  229 

fiorist,  274 

course,  229 

dot*™,  213 

fiower,  229 

cowrf,  232 

driften,  257 

/u6,  209 

courtesy,  230 

droof,  208 

/unAr,  208 

courtliness,  231 

drown,  219 

/ocus,  296 

cousm,  232 

druggist,  274 

folklorist,  274 

coward,  233 

drwd,  213 

/oof,  51 

cowry,  257 

dry,  213 

football,  255 

crave,  218 

dschungel,  257 

four-in-hand,  25T 

crayfish,  191 

duchess,  232 

/oyer,  227 

creed,  215 

du/fee,  232 

/re*co,  258 

cn'cfcef,  255 

durna,  258 

/ro,  219 

criterion,  296 

fruit,  229 

cromlech,  214 

ear,  195 

fungus,  264 

croojfc,  208 

ease,  229 

croquet,  257 

educationalist,  274 

galore,  214 

crown,  232 

either,  neither,  138 

gantlet,  258 

cry,  229 

elegant,  203 

#aoJ,  179 

culinary,  163 

eligible,  282 

#ape,  219 

cup,  216 

elocutionist,  274 

garage,  255 

cupboard,  190 

endorse,  282 

^rar  a««,  256 

engine,  229 

gazette,  254 

dance,  232 

England,  21,  22,  note 

genius,  264 

date,  296 

English,  22,  note 

genre,  227 

datto,  258 

enfre'e,  254 

gentleman,  257 

<lead,  54 

eway,  257 

geyser,  258 

Jen/,  54,  137-138 

excursus,  264 

gingerly,  261 

dea/,  54 

exemplary,  282 

gingham,  258 

der^A,  32 

Exeter,  18 

ginseng,  258 

deo*,  178,  229 

earif,  264 

#/en,  214 

deoul,  254 

earfra,  264 

Gloucester,  18 

debutante,  227 

glucose,  260 

decem,  51 

/ace,  229 

#oa/,  257 

demt  iasse,  254 

/air,  203-204 

#o(/;  257 

denouement,  227 

/afAer,  51,  232 

#o«£,  258 

den*,  dentis,  51 

feast,  231 

^ood-oy,  143-144 

den&rf,  274 

/e//,  51 

gossip,  190 

INDEX  OF   WORDS 


355 


grace,  231 
graft,  206 
grandee,  258 
grave,  54 
grimace,  254 
groom,  257 
grotesque,  254 
grunsel,  143 
ywess,  33 
#«t7d,  33 
£«ift,  33 
guitar,  254 
guttapercha,  258 
gymnasium,  296 


>i<,  254 
hackneyed,  191 
Anton,  54 
handicap,  257 
Aoppy,  219 
AarA  oacA,  266 
Aasty,  229 
Aauen,  219 
Aear*A,  165-166 
heimweh,  256 
Ae/p,  54 
hensparrow,  58 
hiccough,  190 
hiylif,  255 
A«7/,  52 

hinterland,  256 
Aft,  219 
Aooo,  208 
hocus  pocus,  209 
Ao/d,  54 
Aome,  255 
Aonor,  230 
Aom,  52 
Aor<e,  194 
Arwr,  229 
Aw/fc,  229 
hull,  258 
human,  199 
humane,  199 
humbug,  257 
Atwoand,  219 
/,  190 


/,  69,  note 


•Aon,  258 

lord,  144 

i//,  219 

tory,  258 

imperator,  50 

/owe,  54 

incisive,  281 

low,  219 

index,  264,  296 

/wny,  33 

indigo,  258 

industry,  242 

machete,  259 

inoculate,  279 

mackintosh,  257 

inquiry,  166 

madam,  232 

Magdalen,  145 

/ac&t,  257 

magnanimity,  242 

jockey,  255 

maidservant,  58 

;o%,  229 

majestats-beleidigung,  256 

/ottrt,  232 

mandarin,  258 

judge,  232 

mangelwurzel,  255 

justice,  232 

manila,  258 

manje7'vanf,  58 

*a»7,  214 

manteau,  254 

AaAe,  257 

marquis,  232 

Aa/<,  54 

master,  232 

Aafc,  54 

matador,  258 

ketchup,  258 

matron,  164 

Aett/e,  216 

mattock,  213 

keycold,  188 

maturity,  242 

AicA,  206 

menu,  254 

kin&rgarten,  256 

mercy,  228 

Ain#,  32 

meter,  216 

AftcAen,  216 

mi/e,  216 

Anave,  54 

mi//,  216 

knockabout,  257 

mischief,  265 

knout,  258 

mistress,  232 

kommodore,  257 

moccasin,  258 

Ao^'e,  259 

mollycoddle,  206 

monger,  212 

laager,  259 

monw«,  273 

Ja&or,  228 

morgue,  32 

langue,  32 

mosey,  209 

(er)  Jau6en,  54 

mother,  232 

/awn,  153 

more,  229 

town  tennis,  255 

muckraker,  206 

Jeawe,  54 

musicale,  254 

fe^end,  164 

mwtfon,  228 

^e  mageste,  256 

fetod,  265 

na/rfria,  231 

/teoe,  54 

nation,  232* 

/(/I,  257 

ne'e,  254 

KAe,  320 

niece,  232 

fon^r,  208 

nephew,  232 

fooM,  219 

nice,  202 

/oof,  258 

non  compos  mentis,  209 

356 


INDEX   OF   WORDS 


noon,  218 

plank,  209 

sad,  195 

Norman,  29 

pogrom,  258 

sa.oa,  258 

nostril,  190 

ponche,  255 

sandwich,  255 

nurse,  257 

poodle,  255 

sap,  54 

^qp,  185 

sauerkraut,  255 

oasis,  164 

j?or&,  228 

savior,  232 

oblivious,  281 

porter,  257 

scanJ,  219 

octopus,  163 

portray,  232 

scare,  219 

odd,  219 

potato,  258 

sc/m/,  54 

odium,  264 

pound,  212 

scfcecfc,  257 

oleomargarine,  260 

jwwer,  228,  232 

schedule,  163 

omen,  264 

prayer,  232 

schieben,  54 

onus,  264 

preach,  232 

scAtJ,  54 

onyc,  264 

predicament,  281 

schlafen,  54 

opera,  258 

premium,  264 

scrips,  257 

opium,  264 

present,  199 

schmack,  257 

orangoutang,   258 

preteeZ,  255 

scientist,  274 

orchard,  190 

pries*,  215 

scrape,  219 

organ,  215 

prince,  232 

seemly,  219 

ows£,  229 

progress,  164 

sei^re,  232 

over,  54 

pronunciamento,  259 

sergeant,  232 

ox,  228 

publicist,  274 

series,  264 

/my,  197 

service,  232 

pwwcA,  257 

sAa/e,  255 

palace,  254 

sAa«  and  will,  293-295 

pannequet,  225 

shamrock,  214 

paresis,  166 

ywarte,  255 

sAeep,  54,  228 

/>ass,  229 

shillelagh,  214 

pastor,  264 

racial,  273 

sAtp,  54 

pastry,  231 

radium,  259 

sAor*,  208 

pater,  51 

raglan,  257 

sAove,  54 

./wrtA,  131-134 

ra/a&,  258 

silvertip,  188 

patron,  164 

ransack,  219 

simmer,  185 

pauper,  264 

rea/ra,  232 

sir,  232 

^eace,  228,  232 

reconcentrado,  259 

sister,  232 

peach,  205 

recondite,  166 

«Y,  54 

^pecfc,  229 

redingote,  255,  257 

situate,  240,  note. 

pellis,  51 

regal,  273 

sm/e,  185 

pemmican,  258 

record,  257 

skedaddle,  209 

peremptory,  163 

re/tc,  232 

sH,  258 

perfect,  177 

rhum,  255 

syh'aoo,  209 

perfume,  199 

rind,  153 

«JKK,  219 

phenomena,  296 

riteen,  54 

«iin,  219 

piano,  258 

river,  229 

skipper,  258 

pibroch,  214  ' 

roasf,  231 

«*«//,  219 

piquenique,  255 

roooer,  257 

«%,  219 

plaid,  214 

rosot/,  255 

sZan^,  257 

j^ate,  231 

rotten,  219 

s/eep,  54 

.pfca,  232 

roya/,  232 

slogan,  214 

/>&««*,  232 

ruppee,  258 

stoop,  275 

INDEX   OF   WORDS 


367 


slough,  213 

technique,  227 

tt^r/y,  219 

smoking,  257 

telegram,  260 

ttfoter,  257 

snicker,  185 

telegraph,  260 

uncte,  232 

snide,  209 

telharmonic,  260 

unique,  281 

sobriety,  242 

temperance,  242 

universal,  282 

soil,  229 

temperate,  282 

use,  229 

soiree,  254 

ten,  il 

usquebaugh,  214 

soldier,  228 

tenaVr,  257 

sowwd,  152-153 

tentm,  51 

vaterland,  256 

sozodont,  260 

terminus,  264 

t>eaJ,  228 

spalpeen,  214 

*Ae«,  54 

vers(,  258 

species,  264 

«Ain,  51 

viewpoint,  188 

spectrum,  264 

tAow,  51,  89-93 

tn'fe'n^r,  258 

spenzer,  257 

*AraW,  182 

villain,  261 

spondulix,  208 

tAree,  51 

villainy,  233 

squalor,  163 

thrive,  219 

vt'rtoe,  233 

square,  258 

tig  on,  51 

vizor,  163 

starboard,  190 

tf/e,  216 

vodka,  258 

*fate,  232 

<»•«,  219 

stet'n,  255 

tin,  54 

wade,  265 

tteppe,  258 

to,  54 

waK,  212 

steward,  257 

toart,  255 

wa/t«,  255 

stirrup,  144,  190 

tobacco,  258 

wampum,  258 

stodbs,  257 

tobacconist,  274 

weltschmerz,  256 

*tooJ,  220 

toboggan,  258 

wAir,  185 

atore,  257 

toilette,  254 

whiskey,  214 

s/rata  tn'a,  17,  212 

tomato,  138 

toAte,  185 

street,  17,  212 

tongue,  32,  54 

wielen,  212,  note 

strtik,  257 

tonne  au,  255 

wi/e,  262-263 

strenge,  22,  note. 

toofA,  51,  54 

«n/man,  58,  144 

string,  22,  note. 

top,  257 

wigwam,  258 

rfwdio,  258 

Tory,  214 

TFtncAe*ter,  18 

stupendous,  281 

tottrut,  274 

window,  144,  189 

«M»«,  232 

town,  228 

wine,  212 

sw'te,  254 

trainer,  257 

woman,  58,  144,  19C 

«*Men,  195 

tramway,  255 

Worcester,  18 

supper,  231 

transit,  264 

wor/fe,  228 

sweater,  257 

treJfc,  259 

write,  54 

swnne,  228 

tre«,  51 

wron^,  219 

trimmen,  257 

«aWe,  229 

tro«,  258 

zaAn,  54 

tatte  d'  Wte,  254 

trowpe,  179 

Zeitgeist,  256 

taooo,  258 

t«,  51 

zinc,  255 

to&e,  219 

t«6e,  136-137 

zt'nn,  54 

toitoo,  258 

ttinye,  32 

zoology,  278-279 

ta«6,  54 

twr/,  257 

*w,  54 

tea,  258 

<ypt«t,  274 

a«nye,  54 

9  L  ft 


JAN  1  0  1990 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY