OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 172, 17 April 1937, Page 7

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Random Notes (Ex I’sofessob Arnold Wall.) "Rtily”: The question is whether the word “ruly,” culled by a correspondent from a leading article in a daily newspaper, is in order or not, the meaning being the opposite of “unruly.” The word, which is very old and good, is Conned from the verb "to rule.’ and was in regular use during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. "Unruly,” its negative, maintained its position with no break, but “ruly” dropped out of use until it reappeared in the nineteenth century, when it is first recorded in Disraeli’s “Venetia,” 1537, after which date it makes an occasional bow. l>ut it probably should be regarded as what ilie philologists call a "back-formation.” from "unrulv.” which was familiar to everybody. The term implies a reversal of the usual order of development, for in the natural Course such a word as “unhappy” comes after "happy, from which it is formed. In any case the word is a good and expressive one meaning "well-behaved,” submissive to rule,” or "obedient.” and it is to be hoped that it may once more come into common use. “Nation” and ‘national.” I am asked why the "a” of “nation” should be long and the "a”.of "national” short, the same variation being observed in many other pairs of words such as “patron” and "patronage.” In general terms the answer is that in words of more than two syllables the sounds of the main vowels are largely determined by the position of tlie stress or stresses, a thing which is so familiar to us and so instinctive that we seldom question it or even become conscious of it. For example, the “o” in “history,” “historian,” and “historical” has three different sounds, and probably very few people even notice the fact. But when it is asked exactly why this is so, I can only reply that the law which regulates these phenomena is a part of the distinctive genius of our language and too deeply embedded In our consciousness to be clearly explained. The same law is indeed perceptible in other languages, but never so clearly as in English, in which the pronuncation of all polysyllables is sternly dominated by it. “That far.” I can sympathise with the reader of White’s History of Selborne, who was quite shocked to come upon the expression “that far,” which be had always regarded as “an unspeakable vulgarism.” In bewilderment be asks. “Has the language changed?” Well, of course it has changed, and will continue to change as long as it is truly alive, but it would not lie permissible to say that all its changes are necessarily for its good. As for “that far,” it is true that it is now considered vulgar or “uneducated,” but, as the occurrence in the classic “History of Selborne” shows, it was not always so, and quite good writers used it without fear of the schoolmaster. The grammarians ultimately damil’d it. not. I think, for any very good or clear reason. We may still, as Eowler observes, use the expression “that high” in such a phrase as “when I was that high.” with a manual demonstration. but that authority thinks that it is permissible only when such a demonstration with the hand is possible, a queer rule, but apparently a sound one. iiiiiiiniiiiiiuiiiii min mi iiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiHi

(Week-end Radio Programmes on page 8 of second section.)

l|Ut|lllllllltllllllllllllllllllllllllHIIIII>llll"IHI , lllltllllllllll | ll<> "Guls to a bear.” One who was familiar iu his schooldays with the expression "he is not fit to carry guts to a bear.” asks about its origin, but thinks J might not care to deal with so brutal a matter in this column. Tuttut, as the historical novelists say, why not? The phrase goes back, of course, to tlie good old days of bear-baiting, when poor Bruin had a sort of official position. Bears were kept by "nobility” and even royalty, and by municipalities to provide public “sport.” In the Fables of tlie pioneer journalist Roger [./Estrange, 1692, we find it satirically used in : "Wee, the King’s Officers, erys the Fellow that carrys Guts to the Bears.” Except for a passage in Marryat, in 1840, the expression does uot appear in literature, in modern times, for obvious reasons, but, asjny correspondent eau testify, it was not forgotteu. Perhaps the reference in Marryat, the idol of an earlier generation. helped to keep it alive. “The ones.” A correspondent ' lias caught a university professor sayiug "the ones who were keenest on it.” and writes to ask whether it is correct to say tiiis. suggesting that “those who” is the only correct expression. I cannot say that "the ones” is incorrect, for it is recognised as a permissible English idiom by authorities, aud there tire exact parallels Io it in other languages. e.g.. Latin and Freud). In this special context I do not. think that "those who” quite gives the impression intended by the speaker, but be might well have used cither “the men” or "the people,” and so have avoided the great risk of hurting the susceptibilities of (lie purist. "Tlie ones” is defensible on the ground that it conveys the meaning of "those very people,” which "those who” hardly does. “Tryst.” Once more I am called upon to settle a family quarrel in respect of the proper pronunciation of this word, paterfamilias appealing to me in order to be able to confute his “presumptuous pup” of a son. who con tends that it is to be pronounced with the short i so as to rhyme with “list,” while tlie elder pronounces it long so as to rhyme witli “sliced.” The young man must not be convicted of guilt, for though Dad is quite right and has the best authorities on his side, the short vowel is permitted, and even recommended by some, e.g., Daniel Joues. The word is an old bunting term, now considered archaic, and uot recognised by the eighteenth century dictionaries, so that appeal to tradition is barred. “Scenic.” I receive a complaint from a correspondent who has heard this word pronounced “over the air” as "sennie,” with the short e. He thinks the ft should be long as in “scene.” Undoubtedly the proper pronunciation is with the long e, as “seenic,” not “senuic,” but the short sound is recorded by Daniel Jones as being also heard. The best authorities approve “seenic” only. In the eighteenth century the word, spelt “scenick,” was certain!’’ pronounced “sennie,” aud this was supported by the analogy of “tone” and "tonic,” etc., so that the modern "scenic” is not traditional. The eighteenth century word, however, meant, only "dramatic” or “theatrical.” ami it might well be argued that our word Is recently formed independently and is entitled to its own usage, in any case, when the bed authorities agree, us they do here, tradition must he ignored as it very often must be.