OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 202, 23 May 1936, Page 7

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Garden Names (Bv Professob Arnold Wall.) A horticultural reader of these uotes asks me to deal with the problem or problems of flower names of Latin or Greek origin, specifying several difficult examples. I could not possibly do this fully in this place, for the subject is vast and extremely complicated. But I may make some general observations and refer those who are interested to my paper on “The Pronunciation of Scientific Terms in New Zealand” (Trans. N.Z. Inst., Vol. LI, 1919). In my opinion we ought to Anglicise plant names as quickly as possible and treat them as we do, for instance, the. familiar and old-established “geranium” and “geum” (“jeeum,” not “gayoom”). I further dislike and would oppose the tendency to substitute the scientific for the old popular name of such plants as snapdragon (“antirrhinum”), pansy (“viola”), larkspur (“delphinium”), not only on aesthetic and sentimental grounds, but also because this substitution often introduces a difficulty where none existed before. And as regards some of the specific cases mentioned by this correspondent (and others), I would say that “gladiolus” is allowed by authorities to be stressed on the “i,” which is then long, as in “die,” or on the “o,” which is then long, as in “hole,” a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, for no one knows when lie is right, and the gardeners often fall back on “glads.” Names beginning witii "cn,” like cnicus, should have the “c” sounded as “k.” When “g” is followed by “e” or “i," it should be soft, as in "geranium”; when followed by “a.” “o,” or “u,” it should be hard. Before “y” it is generally soft, as in “gypsophila,” but our practice is inconsistent. Names of Greek origin with “eli” should keep this hard, as “k,” and “sell” should be “sk,” as in “brachycome,” “schizanthus,” “Corydalis” is properly stressed on the “ryd,” not on the “al.” but no general rule for accentuation can be laid down, and in particular cases it is best to follow the instructions of the standard works, such as Bailey or Johnson. The Poor Prepositions. I am asked to put in a plea for a new preposition exclusively for use in connection with doors and windows, my correspondent having collected four different ways of going '’out,” "out at,” Week-end radio programmes on Page 26. “out by” or “out through” the door, and at least eight ways of looking out “of,” "through,” etc., the window. No doubt such a preposition would be useful, but the trouble is that though it is easy to invent one it would be impossible for my friend, or myself or anybody else to put it into circulation. Even a .Mussolini or a Hitler could not do it. Tlie example of the “Bulletin’s” epicene pronoun—"se,” "sis,” for "he or she,” "his or hers”—is cited by my correspondent, but this well-meant venture was not a success, and, if 1 remember rightly, was dropped after a few years of experiment in the “Bulletin's” own columns. Besides, if we are to have new prepositions wherever they are needed there would be no end to our labours. They ar e a small group and are called upon to express all possible relations between things and events in space and time both literally and figuratively, with the result that one of them will be found to have over fifty main meanings and many subordinate meanings. At least four of our original prepositions have been lost, e.g., "ymbe” for "about,” and "mid” for "with,” and very few have come in to take their place and ease the labour of their colleagues. We have gained indeed the invaluable “down” which in Old English was only a noun meaning "a hill,” and developed through “adown," adverb, "off the hill,” into its modern use. And we have adopted clumsy foreigners like “concerning” and "touching,” and the Scots “anent” and even the pure Latin "via” and the regrettable "re,” but these have done little to help the poor put-upon perspiring prepositions, who must bear their lieavy burden as best they may. Pronunciations in Question. “Dance,” “Chance,” and Co.— The two pronunciations of these words, one with the long "a” as in "father,” the ( other short as in “hat,” are equally good. The short is the traditional sound ; the long was not known, at any rate as a standard sound, in the eighteenth century. "Chance” really be; longs to the same group as "staff, ’ "pass," and "path,” in which a short “a.” when followed by a "sharp" or “voiceless” spirant, became regularly long during the nineteenth century, and as in the ease of these other words the lengthening in "chance,” etc., heard the short sound in England, though in this country it is, I think, more usual than the long. But I should not be justified in declaring the seems to have been confined at first to Southern English. I personally prefer the long sound because 1 am more accustomed to it: indeed. I have rarely short sound wrong because I do not. like it or because it is unfamiliar to me. Such individual judgments, however, often prejudiced and often very fierce, are, unhappily, too commonly made and maintained. “Alias.” — This is perfectly Anglicised. allows an English plural, "aliases,” and is pronounced with the stresses and vocal sounds of “maniac.” It was already regarded as English in the eighteenth century and so pronounced. If anyone calls it “ahlias” be is wrong. Problems of Usage. “Sheep’s Heads” or "Sheeps’ Heads.” —■What is the correct form of the plural of this and of "deer’s borne” where the plural is unchanged? Both forms seem to be wrong, for "sheep’s heads” may mean "heads of a sheep" and sheep with two do appear) ; while "sheeps' heads" suggests "heads of sheeps, ’ which is ungrammatical. Dilemmas like this often appear in the train of such anomalous relics as these unchanged plurals. Of tiie two proposed 1 should prefer the former, “sheep's beads.” which is logical and really conforms strictly to the general rule like "men's clothes." It is possible to avoid the difficulty by turning "sheep” into an adjective and saying “sheep heads” or “deer horns,” “deer skins,” and we do in the case of “fish beads.” "salmon ova,” etc. These may later become true compounds like “harthorn,” the old name for ammonia. The point is really trivial and fortunately we do not often have to use these phrases at all.