OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 113, 6 February 1937, Page 7

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

An Old Offender (Bt Peofessob Arnold Wall.) “Like” as conjunction. I have been asked whether there is any way to prevent ‘novelists’" and “newspaper writers” from using “like” in such sentences as “she had to take her share like the others did.” No, I know of no way. This construction has been standing in the pillory for long, long years, but nothing seems to discourage him. It is, however, not fair to blame the two classes here mentioned as if they were the only sinners. People too often do this for insufficient reasons, and in this case the 1 error is extremely common in conversation, at any rate among, careless speakers. It is not impossible that the usage may yet come to be regarded as permissible, for such things have often happened before in, our history. For example, the modern meaning of “nice,” now thoroughly well established, was strongly condemned when it first began to be changed from the old “fastidious” and allied senses to the familiar meanings of to-day, as all readers of Jane Austen will remember. The use of “have” instead of “be” as an auxiliary with verbs of motion is another case in point “Queen Almost Better.” The caption “Queen almost better,” from a daily paper, is submitted to me for comment This idiom, very frequently used, must certainly be condemned as incorrect English in spite of its “naturalness.” “Better” i s recognised in our dictionaries as meaning l , among other things, “less unwell,” when used of sick persons. It came gradually to be used in the sense of “cured,” “recovered,” or “out of danger,” indicating that a certain definite stage had been reached rather- than comparing one state with another. It wa s then natural to use “quite” and “almost” with it as in the above example, but a little reflection shows that its position is really untenable, and most of us are aware of the fact even if we allow ourselves , the use of it in familiar speech.

A Polite Critic.

A question of “only.” A very gentle critic calls in question the position of “only” in this sentence, from a recent note of mine: “I only do so for want of a better term.” He thinks that it should rather be: “I do so only for want . .” His objection to my placing rests upon the rule that “only” should not be placed away from the word or words which it limits. Among our older writers no such rule was recognised ; it is of modern birth. The objection to the looser and freer placing is only sound when perspicuity is in danger, as Fowler observes, and I quite agree with him when he adds that when there is no such danger ‘it is needless to submit to an inconvenient restriction.” lam all for freedom myself, and, as in above sentence the sense is perfectly clear, I plead “not guilty.” The grammarians, in fact, have been far too much in the habit of straining at gnats and swallowing camels, and -I, for one, welcome the tendency, well exemplified in the quotation from Fowler above, to break away from the more meticulous and shackling of the bonds which they loved to impose. Some Queer Fish. “Electromatic.” This is forwarded to me by a correspondent among other oddities upon which he invites me to comment. His own comment on this word is quite wise. Presumably the word was meant to mean “automatically worked by electricity,” but it cannot mean that as the prefix “auto” is absent and without it the term can only mean “electrically operated.” “Radiotrician.” This is a far worse offender than “electromatic,” for the latter is formed correctly enough, but the inventor of this word has evidently modelled it upon “electrician” which he has torn asunder roughly and ignorantly. The Greek word “electron,” “amber,” from which “electricity” is formed, does not consist of distinct parts which can be separated from one another, and the act of the deviser of “radiotrician” may be compared to that of a man who serves a fowl by sawing it in two across the middle of its body. “Displenishing.” This term is much in use in New Zealand—“displenishing sale.” There is no oddity here. It is good Scots, at least 300 years old as a sort of legal term. It i s useful, well bred, well established, and in my opinion unexceptionable. “Normalcy.” This is sometimes used as a variant for “normality.” It is distinctly bad from every point of view, for it is unnecessary and about as wickedly malformed as a Latin word can be. “Overlate.” It is difficult to condemn this as my correspondent would like me to do. Our dictionaries recognise quite a number of exactly parallel formations, such as “over-eager, “overbusy,” and “overlong.” They are arbitrarily divided into two classes, some with the hyphen, some without. “Overlate,” if allowed, should, I think, go without, as “overlong” does. It does not seem to be recognised by authority as yet, but it seems t 0 me probable that it will be before long. “Centurion,” as a cricketing term for a man who makes a century. I cannot exactly approve of this, but it is quite useful and it is unreasonable to apply high standards in the language of what is, after all, a game in spite of the reverence with which we regard it. “Chairwoman.” My correspondent does not like this and for once disagrees with Fowler who, however, does not exactly recommend it but includes it in his list of feminine titles which are “recent or impugned.” It is certainly extremely awkward, especially as it so often has to be accompanied by Mrs. or Miss. On the other hand it is also very awkward to use Chairman, of a lady, with Mr., and Mrs. or Miss Chairman seems wrong tod. We seem here to have got into “a deep, deep ditch,” like the sow in the Psalm and I for my part cannot see how we are going fo get out Paritive.’ This word is strange to me and when my friends asks what it is intended to mean I cannot say I suppose he must have collected it somewhere, and if w e had the context we might make a guess at it. In any case it is not a recognised English word “While” for “and.” Quite innocent in general but occasionally badly used as in my friend’s example: “And later in England I married an American while a child was born in England ” Dear me!

(Week-end Radio on Page 24.)