OUR MOTHER TONGUE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23145, 17 September 1938, Page 4 (Supplement)

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Random Notes and Little Problems

By PROFESSOR ARNOLD WALL

HERE ought to be a I law. . ." Most of us often say or think this. We feel that if we could only lie dictators for ever so short a time we could abolish some grievance with a stroke of the pen: noisy motor-' cycles perhaps, or "Oxford bags," or anything else which annoys our eye or car. One critic I know of would rehabilitate our spelling, and another from whom I have just heard would like to introduce a new word. New Word "Wanted" My friend has noticed that the verb "to want" has a double meaning which is liable to cause confusion, as exemplified by the expression "he wants a beating" which may mean either that lie desires or that he needs it. Ho would concoct a now verb "to nessire" which "would clearly express both need of and desire for," and stress it on the first syllable. He thinks that if it were adopted by the press it would easily pass into common speech and he further wishes that we could have an English controlling body to "command necessary alterations and improvements." No, the "if" is too big. "The press" cannot be ordered about, or persuaded, or cajoled. It has not one will, but thousands of wills and it has no single eye or ear to which we can appeal. Apart from the impossibility here hinted at I cannot agree that a new word is wanted or "nossircd." Arc we ever deceived by "want"? Rarely, if ever, 1 should say. But 1 think it is n pity that the verb "to lack" has fallen out of common use. Jf tradesmen should now call from their shop-doors to passers-by "what d've lack?" as tlicv used to do in old days, they would hardly be understood. And as for an English Academy, as 1 have said before, the English people simply would not obey it. Musicians' Names T cannot, spare the space to give here all the pronunciations of famous names of composers asked for by an enquirer; all, or nearly all, have been dealt with in these notes already. In most cases, too, the English spelling of the names as pronounced is unsightly and clumsy and it hurts me to set them down. .1 may say, however, that the "stein" of Rubinstein is "stine." not "steen," and that "Vaybcr." for Webber, of which my friend complains, is approximately right. 1 find it hard to believe that inv correspondent has heard Bach as "Bash." Chopin as "Chopping," "Etude" as "Utadc," and "prelude" as "pre-lay." Anyhow, people who pro-

Jiounce like that arc beyond the range of niv feeble artillery. A very interesting point is raised by a correspondent who notices that tiie phrase "to while away the time" is sometimes put "to wile," which he himself prefers as being more expressive. ( It is a fact that some writers have' used the form "wile" in modern times in place of the old orthodox "while." The verb "to while" in this sense is recorded from about 1630, and it was not until the nineteenth century that "wile" replaced it in certain writers. The explanation offered by the Oxford Dictionary is "that association with certain Latin and French idioms lias led to the substitution of 'wile' for 'while' by some modern writers. The Latin is 'decipere tempus,' the French is 'trompcr le temps,' both of which may be translated by 'cheat the time;' " This "explanation" is extremely questionable. The examples quoted by the O.D. from Madame d' ArTiTny, 179G, and Walter Scott.' are not to the point, for in both of them the verb "to wile"-is more literally used and the idiom is not that under discussion. The first recorded example is really from Dickens' "Oliver Twist." 1838, and we may be quite sure that this writer, at that date, was not misled by any Latin or French idiom but merely misconceived the idea and adopted "wile" in ignorance. Under these circumstances the use of "wile" in this phrase ought to he discouraged and regarded as a perversion, if a clever one, of the original. "To Transit" "Battleships that could transit the canal," extracted from a newspaper report, is forwarded to me for comment b.v a highly-valued correspondent who asks if a verb "to transit" is permissible English, and observes that "to audit" is surely not a parallel. My instinct impels me to damn "to transit" on sight as an Americanism. Reference to the Oxford Dictionary, however, induces caution. As an intransitive verb "to transit" is on record from about 1440 to 1852, no later; as a transitive verb it is recorded once in 1674 and after that no more until ]Bs2—"a railway line which would transit Germany etc.," and after that there is no record. In view of these facts it could be maintained that the word is good English, but it would seem to me more reasonable to argue that the word, having had a fair trial, lias failed to establish itself, being rejected by the good sense of the English nation. Anyhow that is how 1 should be inclined to regard it, yet it may he found useful enough in modern times to make good the position for which it makes a bid and 1 shall make no prophecy. I may add that a true parallel to "to transit" is "to exit" as used on the stage.