OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21708, 15 February 1936, Page 17

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

RANDOM NOTES

[By PROFESSOR ARNOLD WALL.],

xm Little Problems A correspondent, writing on behalf of a group of teachers, asks what the examiner in Matriculation English meant by his presumed objection to “a picture featuring Robert Browning.” No doubt he dislikes and objects to “featuring,” which is an innovation due to the cinema advertisers and is hated by many. In my opinion this usage has come to stay and. is justifiable by precedent and innumerable examples, yet I dislike it. My objection, however, and that of others of this generation, will not suffice to damn it; those who grow up with it will, not find fault with it. But the further question arises as to .the exact meaning of “to feature.” In present practice the picture “features” the player, not the character he represents. The picture referred to in the example “featured” a certain actor who presented Robert Browning; yet I do not think this was in the examiner’s mind. In the older idiom of the stage Henry Irving, playing Hamlet, would be “starred.” The production would say “starring Henry Irving,” not “starring Hamlet.” When “featuring” has lived down the scorn and gibes of these days it is to be hoped that it will be thus restricted in its Usage, but who can predict what the cinema people will do? They seem capable of any enormity. Hapuku or hapuka. Some young men after a discussion on this point appealed to the local newspaper which decided in favour of “hapuka.” Then they appealed to me, though I am no authority on Maori. Reference to Williams’s, Dictionary, however, shows that “hapuku” is the only recognised form. In the South I have always heard and seen it as “hapuka” but cannot say whether this is the correct Southern Maori form or a mere mistake. Perhaps some Maori scholar will be kind enough to explain. “For,” “four” and “forty.” I am asked to “ explain” these forms, and presume that my correspondent is puzzled by their apparent inconsistency. In Old English the preposition “for” was spelt as it is now, but the numeral “four” was “feower” and “forty” was “feowertig,” These numerals were very variously spelt in Middle English but usually retained some trace of their old forms. “Four” still does so, and “fourty” was the usual spelling till the seventeenth century. The change to “forty” is quite capricious and doubtless men would make it almost unconsciously. The same correspondent enquires about the correct way of writing the plural forms of “to,” “two,” “too,” and so on. It has been found most convenient in all such cases to use the apostrophe: “to’s,” "two’s,” etc.; this is purely conventional and if it seems to be inconsistent with the more J familiar plurals it need cause no* distress, so why worry? A good hater of “five (or six) feet tall” asks me to “see that it is stopped.” Apart from my embarrassment at the attribution to me of any such power, I cannot help my correspondent. This usage is quite good and at least 200 years old, and his objection to it is one of those rather unreasonable personal judgments to which reference was made in a recent note. “Flys.” I am asked whether this form of the plural of “fly” is correct when used of “tent-flys.” It is quite correct, though it seems ungrammatical; the same form was always used in the days when a one-horse cab -was called a fly- It has been found convenient and has established itself in defiance of strict £ule. “More correct.” A correspondent challenges my use of this in writing of a certain pronunciation. I justify it by saying that “correct” is quite properly used of actions or courses of procedure which admit of gradations in the sense. A pronunciation may be “perfectly correct” while another, though permissible, is not so good or so well established, and .in such a case “more correct” seems to me the natural and proper expression. “Enquire” or “inquire.” Both are permitted. If one is to be got rid of in the interests of uniformity it should be “enquire,” but my space will not allow of a full explanation. “Shew” or “show.” Though the eighteenth _ century and early nineteenth form “shew” is still occasionally used, it is officially obsolete now according to the Oxford Diction-' ary, “Shew” is historically good, but nothing is gained by retaining it. > “Among” and “amongst.” Fowler’s decision, after a long study. of these forms is that (1) “among”, is the normal word, (2) “Amongst” is more usual before vowels; but (3) before “the,” which-so commonly

follows as to • outnumber all other initials, the;' two . forms are used quite indifferently. “Farther” and “further.” I agree with Fowler in thinking that “hardly any one uses the two words for different occasions; most people prefer one or the other for all purposes, and the preference of the majority is for ‘further.’ ‘Farther’ is not common , except ‘ where distance is in question.” In such cases as this it has usually happened that the two forms have become differentiated in sense (more or less completely) to the advantage of‘the language, but here this is not proved to be possible. Probably in the very long run “farther” will disappear. “Right-of-way” in the plural. Logically and grammatically the only proper form is “rights-of-way” as long as the elements of the compound remain clear; “right-of-ways” may be tempting but it would not be, correct. This compound should behave like “man-of-war,” “man-at-arms,” “ticket of leave,” etc., but the fact that “rights” has a certain special sense gives the plural “rights-of-way” a different “feel.” “Chi-chi ’ English,” I have been asked to explain what I meant by this in a recent note. It is the current term for English as spoken by natives of India and Ceylon, and by many Eurasians or half-castes, now generally called Anglo-Indians. May and might. A correspondent is puzzled by my use of “might” when I say that a name “might” be so and so, instead of “may.” Presumably he thinks that as “might" is the past tense of “may” it should not be thus used. Actually this use of “might” is old and most-firmly established. We all say “he might come to-day” or “it might rain.” “May” itself is really a past tense which acquired a present sense very long ago; so also are “can,” “shall.” and “dare,” while we habitually use “could” and “would” in the present sense. A Few Surnames / Mullins, This is the French “moulins,” and is thus the same as the English Mills. Huggins and Higgins. These names are both diminutives of the Old English word “hyge,” mind, courage, etc., which is represented in Middle English by Hugh and elsewhere by Hugo, Other derivatives from Hugh are Hewlett, Hewlings, Howchin, and Hullett. Turnbull. This is thought to be a nickname for a strong man. I have my doubts, but good authorities will have it so. The name appears also as Trumble, Trimble, Turnbill. and Tremble. “Bush” English A correspondent, commenting on my note on “souple-jack” draws my attention to certain peculiarities of the language of bushmen and sawmillers and asks me to discuss them. They call an area of bush “a bush” and say “bushes" for more than one such Arcs* Idioms of this kind naturally grow up in every craft and trade and as long as they are confined within the limits of such craft or trade they must be left undisturbed. In practice, of course, these terms or idioms, which we call “technical.” are only used and understood by the workers in the craft. But if they spread abroad and begin to come into more general use, as they often do, especially in figurative senses, they become the concern of us all. As this is hardly likely to happen in this case I should not condemn or criticise the usage. The Black List A correspondent invites me to have a tilt at “capacity” in house,” etc. Economy in speech and in writing is indeed a desirable thing, but too often the attempt to achieve it only results in horrors. This is such a case. To make the single word “capacity” do the duty of “filled to the utmost capacity” is to cram a quart into a pint-pot and is only justifiable in a Scotch telegram. (Scots will pardon me, I hope; Scotch, here does not really mean Scotch.) “Financial,” for “solvent.” The same correspondent draws my attention to this, and again I am heartily with him in his objection to it, on the ground stated above. A similar and equally horrible case is “mental" for “mentally unsound.” “Can’t hardly.” TVris criminal is handed over to justice by a correspondent who remarks that “the number of people using it is beyond belief.” The expression is certainly extremely common (in both senses). It seems to be due to a confusion of “I can’t" and “I can hardly,” when the speaker mixes his gears. I once heard it combined with another misdemeanour which can join it in the pillory: “The ’andle’s so ’ot I can’t ’ardly ’old it.”