OUR MOTHER TONGUE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22402, 24 April 1936, Page 4 (Supplement)

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

J AM invited by a correspondent to discuss two questions which I can only .deal with briefly within the space at my command "Standard spoken English." Is there such a thing? My correspondent thinks not, and would think that "even the most cursory examination of* Jones' Pronouncing Dictionary, for example, would kill this superstition." If tho contention is that there is now no fixed, accepted and inviolable rule for the pronunciation of English, I agree; and Jones, in his Introduction, makes it clear that he does not consider such a "standard" as either desirable or attainable. In brief, the more legitimate variations in our practice are due to class-differences on the one hand and regional differences on the other, and neither of these can be denied its rights Existence of a Standard But in the wider sense the existence of a standard is also undeniable. When we condemn downright vulgarisms such as the dropped hj, or mispronunciations like "mischievious" or "clurk," we are assuming a standard; and the use of "good" and "bad," which we cannot avoid in making such judgments, implies a standard. The fact that few of us can attain the standard of conduct set up by Christianity, for example, does not prove that there is no such standard. I would also observe that the variations due to tho two causes abovementioned are steadily being restricted in number and in enormity. Regional characters tend to disappear slowly but surely before the onset of education, improved transport, the radio, and other forces; while social stratification shrinks in range and in clarity of demarcation as a result of social progress, even if the "classless" society of the communist's dream, wherein an iron standard might bo established, seems as yet very faint and far-off. Pronunciation of Latin "English Latin." The second problem offered to me is the origin of the insular or English pronunciation of Latin, which my correspondent would find in sheer illiteracy. This explanation will not fit tho facts, if only because a man who knows Latin, however imperfectly, can hardly be called illiterate. No, the. proximate cause was the Reformation of the Church, which abolished tho Latin ritual and cut the Anglican community ofi from Continental influence; while tho ultimate cause was the stubborn insularity and self-sufficiency of tho typical Englishman, and this, coupled with his ingrained conservatism, now makes it hard to chango a habit of such long standing, Actually, when Erasmus visited and resided in England (1498-1517) ho thought the English pronunciation of Latin particularly good, but within 100 years Englishmen who went abroad found that their barbaric Latin could not be understood by European scholars until thoy had unlearned their errors. Some years ago the headmaster of Westminster School said pubiielv that the English pronunciation of Latin began at that school, also that it was deliberately introduced "so that the people should not understand the Mass" (this was greeted with "Hear, hears"), but when pressed for his authority could not give it (I tried him myself). It is difficult to discover how far tho attempt to substitute a modern or Continental mode for the insular in English schools has succeeded; my correspondent refers to the latter as "now happilv moribund," and I hope it is so. But tho old habit dies very hard, and even so bright and brainy a writer

Random Notes —No. XXV.

By PROFESSOR ARNOLD WALL

as A.P.H. of Punch seems to take leave of his common sense and natural intelligence when he tries to defend it. Whoever was responsible for tho establishment of the "Continental" mode in the schools of New Zealand ought to have a statue in solid gold in every city of this country. This little disquisition must be taken as an answer by an inquirer who asks how to pronounce "no obliviscaris," "forget not." The Englishman pronounces (or used to pronounce) "ne" like "see," and the "ar" like "air"; but the Continental sounds, as used in New Zealand, are, for "ne," approximately "nay" (we cannot easilv sound a true long ein English); and " ! 'ar" as in "are" or "arm." "Working-class English" A correspondent, referring to my note on the alleged confusion of "may" and "might," assures mo that in his experience it is extremely common in "working-class conversation." He supplies me also with a further example of the corrupt tendencies of this form (or malform) of English. This is "never ever," used as an intensive of "never," presumably meaning "never at any time," though "never" obviously includes "at any time." This kind of tautology, pleonasm or over-emphasis is not infrequent in many languages; "quite all right" is in this class; as Fowler says: "Quite all right" is "all quite wrong." It would, of course, he idle to dwell long on the perversions, corruptions and other enormities of tho speech of the ignorant and vulgar, since no amount of correction can do any good. But it is disquieting to know that a system of universal free education does not eliminate the evil, nor perhaps even mitiga'to it. There is some consolation in tho fact that vulgarisms seem to be an inevitable concomitant of a highly developed and civilised language; among truly primitive and savage peoples they are unknown, just as spurious money is among those whose currency consists solely of cowrie shells. "Vitamine" or "vitamin." This word was formed by tho discoverer, Casimir Funk, and appears first in his account of his discovery in the Medical State Journal in 1912. He named it thus because ho thought that an "anjino-acid" was concerned, and when it had been found that this supposition was an error, the official spelling was changed to "vitamin" in order to'avoid the suggested connection. This was about 1920, or a little later. Pedantic and Incorrect Tho pronunciation is given by the Oxford Dictionary (Supplement)' with either tho long i, as in "vital," or the short as in "bit"; but the 'concise Oxford Dictionary (Third Edition, 1934) gives the short only; the second i is short. 1 anticipate that the long i will prevail in the long run, becauso of tho inevitable association with "vital" and its derivatives. "Because." The usual and perfectly correct pronunciation is "bikoz," with short o as in "not." Authorities also permit "'bicawz,' which was the only pronunciation recognised as good in the Idth century. There is a very strong tendency in this country to pronounce the "be" as "boo," following the spelling. This is pedantic and incorrect. "Though." The th is sounded dh, as in "that," "thou," "there," not with the sharp or "voiceless" sound of "thick," "thin"; tho pronunciation with the sharp th is, however, good standard Scots, and is recorded also in a few localities in the extreme North of England as a provincialism. "Process." Tho o is long, us in "prone'' or short as in "prop." The long sound is the more usual and will most probably prevail, though the Oxford Dictionary prefers the short. It is short in tho United States.