ENGLISH UNDEFILED.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19801, 28 May 1926, Page 10

ENGLISH UNDEFILED.

TO THE EDITOR Snt, —We hear much In these days about the prevalence of loose and improper pronunciation of English. The reformers are apt to snow more zeal than discretion, an are led more by enthusiasm than knowledge. Quite recently ((vide the cables of a week or two ago) one of our leading dramatists threw away his reputation for sanity by a violent attack upon the English pronunciation of the Prince of Wales, which he indignantly stigmatised as “ Cockney." Whether the pronunciation of the lower class of Londoner is in Itself degraded and undignified, and therefore deserving reprobation, is distinctly questionable. The Cockney speaks with a nasal twang (caused by a lowering of the velum). So does the Frenchman, The Cockney cannot be charged with vocal laziness. for If he drops the “ h " of some words he adds H to others, nor with “ lip laziness," for he discards the easy vowel combination in "how," and says “ heow,” a pronunciation which calls for considerably more active kind of llp-gymnastlcs. But, in any case, whether Cockney speech is or is not a symptom of moral depravity, It is quite certain that the Prince of Wales is Innocent of the charge brought against him by Mr St, John ErvlneWhat the Prince of Wales speaks is, Ipso facto, the best English, for there Is no other standard of English except social prestige. The best English, if there is any, Is that recognisably homogeneous dialect which Is spoken by “ the best people." It Is their pronunciation, their code of manners, their dress, which are the best, the best people being those who are accepted as such by the man in the street, who is thus the ultimate arbiter elegantlarum. The best pronunciation is decided by the verdict of public opinion, and the purist who seeks to run counter to that verdict is merely a mischiefmaker.

The purist in English, whether In respect to it? vocabulary, its grammar, or its pronunciation, is a menace and a pest. It is by his malign Influence that the conscientious writer hesitates about splitting an infinitive (an alleged solecism that all the best writers of the last 300 years have committed) or boggles at the word “reliable,” or makes a clumsy detour to avoid using a collective singular with a plural verb. The difficulties of writing good English are su "riently great without the addition of th. purist’s arbitrary injunctions. The golden rule in English composition is “to do a great right do a litttie wrong." “ Look after the pounds, and let the pennies look after themselves.” These considerations of the mischievous and annoying effects of an 111-Informed enthusiasm for pure English lead me to offer some criticisms upon an interesting lecture on English pronunciation which was reported in your columns on Tuesday. Amongst other things it was contended in that lecture that New Zealand is developing a dialect of its own, owing principally to slackness in the organs of speech. The examples given are none of them peculiar to New Zealand, but are characteristic of the Cockney dialect which, as I have indicated above, cannot be charged with undue slackness, nor in any case is such slackness in speech necessarily a vice. The only definite New Zealand peculiarity is not mentioned (e.g., the pronunciation of “dignity” u “dignitee”), and that is caused by substituting a tense sound for a alack one.

We are told again not to pronounce ‘Nature” or “picture” with the ending “-cher,” which U nevertheless the standard pronunciation in ordinary conversation. To pronounce the second, syllable of these words with a full instead of a slurred vowel is an affectation, although it is a main point in the lecture to discontenance affectation. It is a similar affectation to pronounce “and" carefully as we are recommended to do. la nine oases out of ten in good conversation the and” is slurred to a mere “n” sound; neither the novel nor the “d” need be pronounced. We are warned to differentiate between “White” and “Wight,” but standard English docs not do so. This enthusiasm for an improved pronunciation is very apt to overreach itself and fall on the other side. If the recommendations of the lecturer were thoroughly taken to heart our speech on the whole would be worse than before, more affected, and further removed from standard English. The speech of New Zealand is at present very near to the standard type, except for a tendency to a Cockney of the diphthongs from which educated New Zealanders are generally free. The pronunciation of the readers st ths Shakespearean Society entertertaioments, for example, is practically the normal New Zealand speech, and is si ths same time standard English. The allegation that the speech of New Zealand is degenerating seems to be illfounded. The tendency seems to be rather the other way, as we should expect from the general use iu th estandard of education. But in any case, even if a process of deterioration (or rather differentation) is now at work, we may be sure that it will nor advance far, quite independently of ths efforts of the speech reformers. For it re* quires no great vision to realise that before long the world will be linked by wireless into one vast city. The growth of dialects is a consequence of remoteness from a. “ n * guistic centre. With the steady annihilation of space, which we see going on now this process of differentiation will he checked and counteracted. In no very long time all dialects will be eliminated.—l am, etc., 11. Ramsat. University of Otago.