OUR MOTHER TONGUE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22350, 22 February 1936, Page 27 (Supplement)

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

BY PROFESSOR ARNOLD WALL

RANDOM NOTES—XIX.

A correspondent, writing on behalf of a group of teachers, asks what the examiner in matriculation English meant by his presumed objection to "a picture featuring Robert Browning." No doubt he dislikes and objects to "featuring," which is an innovation due to the cinema advertisers, and is hated by niany. 111 my opinion this usage has como to stay, and is justifiable by precedent and innumerable examples, yet 1 dislike it. My objection, however, and that of others of this generation, will not suffice to damn it; those who grow up with it will not find fault with it. But the further question arises as to the exact meaning of "to feature." In present practice the picture "features" tliG player, not the character he represents. The picture referred to in the example "featured" a certain actor who presented Robert Browning, yet I do not think this was in the examiner's mind. In the older idiom of the stage Henry Irving, playing Hamlet, would be "starred." The production would say "starring Henry Irving," not "starring Hamlet." When "featuring" has lived down the scorn and gibes of these days it is to be hoped that it will be thus restricted in its usage, but who can predict what the cinema people will do? They seem capable of any enormity. Hapuku or liapuka. Some young men, after a discussion on this point, appealed to the local newspaper, which decided in favour of "liapuka." Then they appealed to me, though I am no authority 011 Maori. Reference to Williams' dictionary, however, shows that "hapuku" is the only recognised form. In tho south I have always heard and seen it as "hapuka," but cannot say whether this is the correct southern Maori form or a mero mistake. Perhaps some Maori scholar will be kind enough to explain. "For," "four" and "forty." I am asked to "explain" these forms, and presume that my correspondent is puzzled by their apparent inconsistency. In Old English the preposition "for" was spelt as it is now, but the numeral "four" was "feower," and "forty" was "feowertig." These numerals were very variously spelt in Middle English, but usually retained some trace of their old forms. "Four" still does so, and "fourty" was the usual spelling till the seventeenth century. The change to "forty" is quite capricious, and doubtless men would make it almost unconsciously. Conventional Usage The same correspondent inquires about the correct way of writing the plural forms of "to," "two," "too," and so on. It has been found most convenient in all such cases to use the apostrophe: "to's," "two's," etc.; this is purely conventional, and if it seems to be inconsistent with the more familiar plurals it need cause no distress, so why worry? A good hater of "five (or six) feet tall" asks me to "see that it is stopped." Apart from my embarrassment at tho attribution to me of any such power, I cannot help my correspondent. This usage is quite good and at least 200 years old, and his objection to it is one of those rather unreasonable personal judgments to which reference was made in a recent note.

"Flys." I am asked whether this form of the plural of "fly" is correct when used of "tent-fl.ys." It is quite correct, though it seems ungrammatical; the same form was always used in the days when a one-horse cab was called a fly. It has been found convenient and has established itself in defiance of strict rule. "More correct." A correspondent challenges my use of this in writing of a certain pronunciation. I justify it by saying that "correct" is quite properly used of actions or courses of procedure which admit of gradations in the sense. A pronunciation may be "perfectly correct," while another, though permissible, is not so good or so well established, and in such a case "more correct" seems to me the natural and proper expression. "Enquire" cr "inquire." Both are permitted. If one is to bo got rid of in the interests of uniformity it should be "enquire," but my space will not allow of a full explanation. "Shew" or "show." Though the eighteenth century (and early nineteenth) form "shew" is still occasionally used, it is officially obsolete now, according to the Oxford Dictionary. "Shew" is historically good, but nothing is gained by retaining it. Matters ol Choice "Among" and amongst." Fowler's decision, after a long study of these forms, is that (1) "among" is the normal word, (2) "amongst" is more usual before vowels; but (3) before "the," which so commonly follows as to outnumber all other initials, the two forms are used quite indifferently. "Farther" and "further." I agree with Fowler in thinking that "hardly anyone uses the two words for different occasions; most people prefer one or the other for all purposes, and the preference of the majority is for 'further' . . . 'farther' is not common except where distance is in question." In'such cases as this it has usually happened that the two forms have become differentiated in sense (more or less completely) to the advantage of the language, but here this has not proved to be possible. Probably in the very long run "farther" will disappear. "Right-of-way" in the plural. Logically and grammatically, the only proper form is "rights-of-way," as long as the elements of the compound remain clear; "right-of-ways" may bo tempting, but it would not be correct. This compound should behave like "man-of-war," "man-at-arni3," "ticket-of-leave," etc., but the fact that "rights" has a certain special sense gives the plural "rights-of-way" a different "feel." The Black List " 'Chi-clii English.' " I have been asked to explain what I meant by this in a recent note. It is the current term for English as spoken by natives of India and Ceylon, and by many Eurasians or half-castes, now generally called Anglo-Indians. A correspondent invites me to have a tilt at "capacity" in "capacity house," etc. Economy in speech and in writing is indeed a desirable thing, but too often the attempt to achieve it only results in horrors. This is such a case. To make tho single word "capacity" do the duty of "filled to the utmost capacity" is to cram a quart into a pint-pot and is only justifiable in a Srotch telegram. (Scots will pardon me, I hope; Scotch here does not really mean Scotch.) "Financial," for "solvent." Tho same correspondent draws my attention to this, and again I am heartily with him in his objectipn to it, on the ground stated above. A similar and equally horrible case is "mental" for "mentally unsound."

"Can't hardly." This criminal is handed over to justice by a correspondent who remarks that "the number of people using it is beyond belief." Tho expression is certainly extremely common (in both senses). It seems to be duo to a confusion of "I can't" and "1 can hardly," when the speaker mixes his gears. I once heard it combined with another misdemeanour which can join it in the pillory: "The 'andle's so 'ot I can't 'ardly 'old it."