Evening Post. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1934 "COCKNEY RAILLERY"

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 47, 24 February 1934, Page 12

Evening Post. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1934 "COCKNEY RAILLERY"

As the committee: consisting of "one Irishman, two Scots, one American, and two Welshmen," which the 8.8.C. appointed to teach ihe English how to pronounce their own language, had made the.lrishman its' chairman, and he is a firstclass fighting man with a notorious contempt for everything English, it was not to be expected that it would accept the severe criticism of its latest effort lying down. If "the oppressed English," as a symI pathetic Scot has called them, had not risen as one man to protest against this latest threat to their autonomy, neither was it necessary for the committee to rise as one man in v reply. But we may suppose that it was with", at least, the moral support of the two Scots, the American," and the two Welshmen that its fighting Irish chairman, Mr. Bernard Shaw, came forward to reply. Neither a lack of courage nor an excess of modesty had restrained' Mr. Shaw from playing , the part of an' "Alhanasius contra mundum" on innumerable other occasions. The "mundiis Anglicus," the solid, slowmoving, conventional, patriotic, world-conquering Englishman "had indeed been, even in war-time'^ one of his favourite butts. But, though his wit was too essential a part of him to be denied, his failure to give it freer play on this familiar target may have disappointed some of his admirers.

In a brief and witty sub-leader "The Times" of December 29 had opened the attack on two of the recommendations of the 8.8.C.'s Advisoiy Committee on Spoken English which had been published on the previous day. The article opened with a playful allusion to the nationalities represented on the- committee, but sounded a note of serious patriotism in its concluding appeal from this advisory body to the board of the 8.8.C. itself, "composed for the most' part of stalwart and unimpeachable! Englishmen." Here was a fine opening for the stalwart and 'unimpeachable patriotism of England, • and many correspondents availed themselves of it with a combination of raillery and scholarship and common sense worthy of the lead that "The Times" had given them. But here was also a highly congenial opening for the biting wit of Mr. Shaw. An appeal had been made to the stalwart and unimpeachable Simons Pure of, English patriotism to resis.t

the dictation of ,a committee representing three of the lesser breeds of Great Britain'and one foreign nation. To the, tune of "Britons never shall be' slaves'' they^had risen in their bati talions to protest that .they would rather die than -pronounce "conduit" as three syllables or ;put^ the accent on the second syllable of '^disputant." It would be as'reasonable to expect

boys of the bulldog breed to consent to the repeal bf.-Magna Carla, or to make three syllables of "Colquhoun" or four of "Cholmondeley." Let the Old Guard die rather than surrender to such indignities as these! i Along these lines t Mr. . Shaw's wit might have run riot to the delight even of those, at whom his shafts

were aimed, but thougli his long letter to "The Times" abounds in wit it

neglects this tempting .opportunity. Have a sense of responsibility and a strict attention to business sobered for once even this most irresponsible of humorists? But his letter shows

something much more surprising than this neglected opportunity. It actually associates him positively and intimately with the nation which he has spent so much of. his time in deriding from the standpoint of a i"spectator ab extra." 'Referring to his committee's proposal to put the stress on the second syllable of "disputant," Mr. Shaw writes:

Wireless and the telephone have created a necessity for a fully, and clearly articulated spoken English quite different from the lazy vernacular that is called modd'ninglish. Wo have to get rid 7iot only of imperfect pronunciations but of ambiguous ones. Ambiguity iSilargely caused by our English habit of attacking the first syllable and sacrificing the second, with the result that many words beginning with prefixes such as ex or dis sound too [ much, alike. ■.

"We" might perhaps be allowed to pass'with a caution, but what would Mr. de Valera say of "our English habit"?; A so-called Irishman who thus proclaims himself as one of the English must surely be a "persona non grata" in Dublin as long as Mr. de Valera remains in charge. According to his reckoning there must have been two foreigners on the committee when it set to work, but thej chairman has written himself off and must be regarded as a lost soul. But though, in spite of previous disclaimers, Mr. Shaw may now be more English than Irish, and doubtless knows a good deal less about Dublin where he was born than about London where he spends a great deal of his time, he cannot he congratulated on the knowledge of

London displayed in his letter. Defending the committee's pronunciation of "condewit," hS writes:

We are not a cockney committee. We arc quite aware that Conduit Street is known in the West End as Cuudit Street. Elsewhere such a pronunciation is as unintelligible as it is incorrect. Wo have to dictate a pronunciation that cannot be mistaken, and abide the resultant cockney raillery as best we

Apart from what one of "The Times" correspondents describes as a "base appeal to that 'inverted snobbishness' which is the enemy of distinction," this passage is a tissue of blunders. It is not only in the West End of London that Conduit Street is known as Cundit Street. It is so known in the street itself, and one of Mr. Shaw's critics has challenged him to ask a taxi-driver to take him to "Condewit Street" and to see what happens. But other correspondents point out the pronunciation to which the 8.8.C.. Committee objects is not even confined to London,as a whole. One writes from Shrewsbury to say that this ancient town is partly dependent on a water supply which requires the use of conduits, "and .these are called by all classes in the town cundits." Oddly enough, even Mr. Shaw's own Dublin is cited against him. "Paddy the Next Worst Thing" testifies that the conduit pipe is or used to be a favourite' phrase of the Irish barrister who almost invariably called it "chondhut." Allowing for the difference of brogue, tliis. comes very close to the recognised English variant "condit." But Mr. Shaw's ignorance of London is seen at its worst when it combines with his class-bias to make him sneer at the "cockney raillery" which is to be expected from the West End. He makes a "blunder here which would be excusable at the Antipodes, but is without excuse in London itself. There arc; cockneys in the West End just as there are snobs in other parts of London, but the characteristic raillery of the -West End 'is not cockney. A" cockney, says the "Oxford Dictionary," js "one born in the City of London," which is a long wav from the West. Not cockney raillery but snobbish raillery is the term to which Mr. Shaw's "inverted snobbishness" should have resorted :to dispavajjo the criticism of Kensington. There is another mistake in the same senlenc.fi.-

We Kave to dictate a pronunciation that cannot be mistaken, says Mr. Shaw, and abide the resultant cockney raillery, as best wo can.

"Dictate" was a strange slip of the great democrat's pen, yet it fits exactly what seems to be the fundamental blunder of the committee for which he was speaking; It was asked to examine the facts of ■ pronunciation and to recommend. It has preferred to dictate, and it is 1 fo be hoped that neither the 8.8.C. Board nor the nation will stand it.