OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 296, 10 September 1938, Page 9

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Random Notes (By Professor Arnold Wall.) A reader of these notes writes to comment on Fowler’s choice of a plural for "hippopotamus/’ which is “hippopotamuses,” not “hippopotami.” He observes, quite rightly, that the sportsmen usually say neither of these, but simply use the singular as a plural, ami that they deal in the same way with “lion.” “elephant,” “antelope," etc.. I take this usage to be perfectly correct, though it. is, I think, confined to die sportsmen and their “circles.” This is, of course, quite a different case from those of “sheep,” ‘.‘deer/’ “grouse,” etc., which admit of no plural form. Lawrence in the Dock A correspondent quotes from “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” this sentence, and asks whether it is correct: “The rain had sodden the fuel.” The answer is that it is not; “sodden,” if used as a participle, can only be the participle of “seethe”; the past participle of the recognised verb “to sodden” must be “soddened.” My correspondent also expresses surprise that so intelligent and well educated a writer as Lawrence should make such a mistake as “X and myself set out.” Here, however, I should not admit that there is a mistake, for the use of “myself” for “I” is well established and may be seen in excellent writers, especially in poetry. When blaming “sodden’’ as used above I should say that, while Lawrence was an admirable writer, he was not the sort of man who would stick at trifles. I imagine that he had but small respect for grammarians and their rules.

(Week-end Radio Programmes appear on Pago 2 of second section.)

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii “The Egoist”

In reply to a query, I repeat, in substance, a note on “egoist,” “egotist,” “egoism,” etc. The facts are that both “egoist” and “egotist” are considered good; both are well established and permitted by the best anthorities, with no difference in seuse when used in ordinary speech and writing. Both are made of Greek materials, but “egotist” is badly and “egoist” is correctly formed; the tin “egotist” has no right to be there. In philosophy, however, “egoism” is used in a restricted and technical sense. It would be a very good thing if “egoist” could be left to the philosophers and “egotist” set apart for ordinary occasions, but there is unfortunately no likelihood of this, in fact the tendency now is to disuse “egotist” altogether. Pronunciation in Question “Miscellany.” This is a difficult case, and I regret that it is not possible to give any clear decision upon it. The stress m*ay be on “mis” or on “cell,” both are allowed. The authorities are not agreed. Daniel Jones gives the stress on “cell” only; the 8.8. C. makes the same recommendation; the Oxford Dictionary, allowing both, gives preference to the stress on “mis.” I prefer the stressed “mis” myself, and this is the traditional pronunciation; all the eighteenth century authorities but one prescribe this. Fowler thinks that the strong general tendency to “recessive accent” will favour the stress on “mis” and if this becomes the winner we shall have a return to the sound favoured by our ancestors. “Titian.” I have been asked whether the first i of this name is short or long. The answer is that it it is short, pronounced as “tish.” The name has long been anglicized and is usually pronounced with a very short i after the ah, but is also heard exactly like the “tician” of “practician.” But I would not recommend this latter.

“Appreciation.” I have dealt with this word before, possibly more than once. I return to It only because a correspondent has noticed that in an old dictionary which he possesses it is given with the third syllable as “she” which he thinks must be wrong, for, if it is right, why not “pronunshiation?” The best authorities still prescribe the sh for the c in “appreciation.” But the c in “pronunciation” bust be clears s, not sh, though the sh is the traditional sound. I may add that though I myself pronounce the c in this word as s. I am shocked to hear myself saying, or seeming to say, “pronunshiatiou” upon the air, and I infer that tharadio does me an injustice. It is, of course, well known that the sounds of s and sh do not come clearly to the listener when transmitted through this mechanism. So, if any listener has noticed this point, I beg his pardon and offer the above excuse. “To Mary And I”

Since I wrote a note, some months ago, on the very general tendency to use a nominative pronominal form after a preposition, not only in New Zealand but also at Home, I have receiv shocking examples from correspondents and have collected others myself, mostly as spoken, but in one case as written by a very well known and deservedly popular English writer on natural history. I forbear to mention her name. The example, “an invitation to Mary and I,” is sent to me by one who heard it from “a really cultured lady teacher.” This sort of thing leaves one gasping. I take up the hammer and prepare to knock a nail into a coffin but realise in time that there is no corpse. The blunder is very much alive and may indeed be heard almost every day. It occurs in the speech of University teachers and students and appears to be actually establishing itself as standard grammar. .So I drop the hammer and go to weep apart. Another Noxious Weed

The people whose grammatical sense is so dull that they say, “between you and I” are probably the same as those who cannot perceive any difference in meaning between "alternate” and “alternative.” Examples of the confusion of these two words are often sent to mo by a friend who finds it, as I do, most irritating. A cable from London, or from Rugby, the other day stated that Belisha beacons had “alternative stripes of red and white,” and a local newspaper describes a county council considering “an alternate method.” These are from m.v friend’s museum. lam myself instructed by the makers of a kerosene stove to turn up the two wicks “alternatively.” Yet what can one do about it? The Magistrates’ Court, the Supreme Court, the stocks, the pillory, the rack ami the indeterminate sentence till suggest themselves, but such aspirations are vain ami we can only, in despair, reiterate the cry, “more brains, more brains!”