OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Dominion, Volume 32, Issue 66, 10 December 1938, Page 9

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Random Notes [By I’koeessoh Aiinoi.o Wall.] Wlien a correspondent asks for a note on the pronunciation of "girl" I am happy to oblige, though I have pieviously dealt with it. But when lie asks me to castigate the "prudish euphemisms" which appear in repot tS/ of certain cases involving girls or. women 1 fear I must decline. “Girl” is one of the most variably pronounced words in our language. I lie ■‘correct’' pronunciation is that indicated by tlie spelling; it should have exactly the same vowel sound as other words of its group, such as "twirl.' "whirl." "pearl.” and so forth. Not one of these, however, shows any tendency to varv as “girl” does-a fact which 1 cannot' very well explain. Daniel Jones gives as the most usual pronunciation the one just indicated, and adds tinee variants occurring "rarely.” Ot these three, only one. I think, can be indicated’ with certainly in our ordmarj svinbols. and that is "gairl” as pronounced in English, not in Scots, llie well-known variants which are spelt “"al.” “gel,” he leaves unnientioned. As I have mentioned before, the variants of this word in the English dialects Dumber nearly 20, and the dialects of Scotland would provide a great many more. » Pronunciations In Question "Clematis.” After a long period of indecision and many heated arguments there is now agreement among authorities that the pronunciation should be “clcmiuatiss.” stressed on “cleinm, not “clemaytiss,” stresed on "inayt,' though this latter is still often heard. “Gala.”' Is this to be “gahla” or “gayla”? That is the question, and hot" at. all an easy one. Fowler and the Concise Oxford Dictionary prescribe ’’gayia,” tlie anglicised pronunelation, while the 8.8. C. recommends “gahla,” supported by Daniel Jones. Who shall decide when the pundits.disagree like ahis? I can only say that | my own preference is for “gahla, and the chances seem to be in its favour.

“Vase.” Once more, as I am asked about it, I repeat that the accepted pronunciation is “vahz,”' not “vayz, ’ and not “vawz”: here the authorities agree. “Comrade.” Here is another old friend. The best authorities agree in prescribing “koinrid,” not “kumricb not “komrayd,” and not “kuiurayd. Yer I do not suppose that any public “speaker” addressing an audience of “workers’’ begins with “komrids.” "Envelope.” Still another wellgnawed boue of contention. While the Authorities, e.g., the 8.8. C., It owler, Daniel Jones, and the Oxford Dictionary agree in recommending the English sound of the “en” in the noun as well as the verb, yet the general public obstinately clings to the pseudo-Freneh “on-” in the noun. I may be mistaken, moving as I do only in a “cool sequestered vale.” but I seem to hear the “en-’’ far oftener than I did a few years ago. so perhaps it is winning after all. “Caries.” . Pronounced “kairi-eez,” and no variant is allowed. So far as the "-ies” is concerned it is like “rabies” as recommended by file best authorities, but it differs remarkably from “series” which is generally “seereez” rather than "seeri-eez”; this latter is, however, prescribed by the Oxford Dictionary and recorded by Jones as a variant. The difference is '■ no doubt due to the fact that “series” is a far commoner word than either “caries” or “rabies.” Familiarity always tends to produce easier and smoother pronunciations just as stones lose their asperities when worn by the action of water. "Fellow.” This is one of those rather uncommon words which vary in pronunciation according to the social stratum in which they are uttered. There are three well-marked variants; the standard pronunciation may be spelt “fello,” the o being very lightly stressed but still distinctly an o. The colloquial and vulgar sound may be spelt “feller” or "fella” (as it usually is in the representation of Irish speech). And some very precise and lofty-minded speakers say “fell-oh”; I sometimes see it thus represented as a mannerism of army officers. Peccavi A critical reader of these notes draws my attention to a lamentable slip to which I must plead guilty in a recent issue. Without any comment he merely sends me a cutting of the paragraph in which I had written that a < certain pronunciation had “reappeared again.” He is. I am sorry to admit, quite right in his silent accusation, for “reappeared” by itself gives the required meaning and “again” is redundant. This is the kind of mistake which a man is apt to make when his brain is fatigued, or his attention distracted, or when he is in love, but I cannot say which of these contingencies is responsible in this case. Needless Duplications A correspondent who has noticed that “nett” is often spelt “nett,” and thinks that this is “a New Zealand peculiarity,” asks whether there is any justification for this spelling. The answer is that there is not. In commercial English the spelling with ft •is very frequent, not in New Zealand only but wherever English is commercially, written. In using this form men have apparently intended, more or less, instinctively, to indicate that the word is used in a special sense, a technical sense. But this has been done without authority and the form “nett’’ is not usually admitted to good dictionaries. The same thing has happened in the case of “sett” and “matt.” The unauthorized “sett” is used of granite blocks and sometimes of sets at tennis. As Fowler observes, the special senses are so many that the distinction is not really distinctive, and lie recommends that the form in ft should be discarded. The case of' “matt” is rather different. Though "matt” is unauthorized. the only recognized form being “mat” for the adjective meaning “dull, lustreless.” yet it is useful to have a distinct, form to distinguish this word from the oilier “mat." This does not exactly justify “matt." but it. makes if i probable that it is more likely than “nett” or “celt" to receive official recognition in the future.

Illinium Weekend radio programmes appear on Page 8 of the second section.