OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 304, 19 September 1936, Page 9

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Parliamentary Speaking (Bt Professor Arnold Wall.) One who has had long experience provides me with a batch of the characteristic weaknesses- of public speakers, in and out of the House. Nearly all these fall into one class whether they be cliches, or hackneyed phrases, or faulty connections, qr vain repetitions, for they all spring from a common source, namely, poverty of intelloot Men succeed in public life by speechmaking and having “got there” they go on making the kind of speeches which have got them there. There is little encouragement to speak really well, and the kind of speech which appeals to the average member and the average audience becomes habitual. To do him justice the speaker wishes to be understood and even if he is able to speak tersely, racily, without waste of words, he will subconsciously fear to do so lest he should bewilder his hearers, so his speech consists largely of diluents. Usually, of course, he could not speak succinctly if he tried, and he is content to dilute, dll in spaces with meaningless connectives, use wordy circumlocutions, and repeat hackneyed phrases ad nauseam. Connectives of course we must have, but a good carpenter will not drive in twenty nails when two will hold. Also, even the best speaker may sometimes pause while he is seeking the best word for his purpose, and if he is wise he will not “er,” if he is Englsh, or “eeyoch” if he is Scotch, but hold his tongue for that Interval. Here are a few specimens Of these weeds of speech; “As far as this or that is concerned” is a treasure to nearly all Parliamentary speakers; they simply cannot get on without it. Everything mentioned must be this “particular” thing, and too often it is “pertickler.” “In, or with regard to” sprouts in every cranny; this choice example was once collected in the House: “it is the same way with regard to the general statements in regard to the unfairness in regard to the tenants." “Individual” for “man” or “person” is a very common trick, rather inflation than dilution, or giving six coppers instead of a sixpence; nearly every common 1 English word is thus changeable.

These examples must suffice. Of course the speeches are Hansardised and edited at the members’ leisure, the method being not unlike that employed by Dr. Johnson when he “reported" the

©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© House of Commons for a London journal. He was not allowed to take notes but roughly memorised the speeches . and wrote them out in lais own language, “taking care,” as he said, “that the Whig dogs did .not have the best of it.” Now what is to be done about it? Nothing. The quality of the speech is conditioned by that of the audience. If and when the audience in this country become more Intelligent, more critical, and less tolerant of pretentious mediocrity, the commonplace and mediocre speakers will no longer succeed but make way for better men. Idioms in Question. "Spoonfuls” or “spoonsful.” A correspondent who hears both of these from different speakers asks which is correct. All these words in “ful”— •handful, cupful, etc. —make their plural forms with the final “s,” handfuls, spoonfuls, and so on. “Hoardings.” A correspondent who was brought up in Australia complains of this word, and prefers “posters” or “advertisements”, as used there, and further suggests that the word ought to be “boardings.” As the hoardings are the structures upon which the posters are displayed, not the posters themselves, there is no fault to be found with it on that score. Hoarding is a good old world connected with the “burd” of hurdle, and I should be sorry to see it replaced by “boarding,” or any other competitor. “Bonham.” I am asked whether this word for a piglet, common in Ireland, is “good English,” and-what is its origin. The word occurs in the forms “bouuv,” “boniv,” “bonnive,” “bon ham,” all representing the Erse “banabli,” a sucking-pig. It also appears as “boneen,” the diminutive form from "banabhin.” As there happens to be an English surname Bonham, the word is sometimes spelt with the capital B. I should not say that this word is exactly English, though it might become so if its use should spread beyond Ireland. “Second to last.” A correspondent who often hears this expression for "last'but one,” asks if it is not incorrect. Undoubtedly it is, and it is not easy to see why anyone should have thought of it at all or supposed it to be preferable to “last but one”; it is not even shorter. “Lessee” and “Mortgagee.” A correspondent is puzzled by these terms, in the use of which he thinks there must be something wrong, because the person who uses land and pays rent is called the “lessee,” while he who uses money and pays interest is called the "mortgagor.” There is really no inconsistency or irregularity here. The person who gives a lease is the “lessor”; be who receives it is the “lessee.” Similarly, the person who gives a mortgage over his property to another is the “mortgagor,” while the recipient of the mortgage is the “mortgagee.” In both • eases the agent or active party ends in “or,” while the recipient or passive party ends in “ee." The fact that a “lessor” and a “mortgagor” are, as a rule, in rather different financial circumstances, does not in the least alter the fundamentals of the case. “Working-class English.” A correspondent, referring to my note on the alleged confusion of “may" and “might,” assures me that in his experience it is extremely common in “work-ing-clyss conversation.” He supplies me also with a further example of the corrupt tendencies of this form (or malform) of English. This is “never ever,” used as an intensive of “never,” presumably meaning “never at any time,” though “never” obviously includes “at anj' time" This kind of tautology, pleonasm or over-emphasis is not infrequent in many languages; “quite all right” is in this class; as Fowler says: “quite all right” ia “all quite wrong.” It would of course be idle to dwell long on the perversions, corruptions and other enormities of the speech of the ignorant and vulgar, since no amount of correction can do any good. But it is disquieting to know that a system of universal free education does not eliminate the evil, nor perhaps even mitigate it. There is some consolation in the fact that vulgarisms seem to be an Inevitable concomitant of a highly developed arid civilised language; among truly primitive and savage peoples they are unknown, just as spurious money i Is among those whose currency consists I solely of cowrie shells.

(Week-end Radio Programmes on Page 20.)