OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23500, 14 May 1938, Page 25

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

RANDOM NOTES By Proessor Arnold Wall A SERIOUS LAPSE “Militate” and “mitigate.”—How is it possible to confuse these two words? It is hard to say, yet it can be done, as may be seen in this quotation from the columns of a daily newspaper:—“ A number of factors mitigating against smooth working.” This blunder is all the more astonishing, because of the great difference between the meaning of the

two words, and because one of them requires a preposition after it in order to complete the sense, while the other does not. It is, of course, , impossible to say for certain in a i case like this whether the writer or ; a compositor is responsible. It can i hardly be due to the machine itself, | though we know that the linotype I may do surprising things. We reI cognise the “lapsus linguae” (the : slip of the tongue) and the “ lapsus I calami ” (the slip of the pen), but as I yet we have not given a special name to the “ lapsus machinae ” (the slip of the machine). Such an error as the above seems to be due to a I momentary paralysis of that part or i field of the brain which controls the faculty of verbal expression, and is possibly due to fatigue, possibly to mere absent-mindedness, possibly to some such minute aberration as causes the “ lapsus Spooneri.” . PRONUNCIATIONS IN QUESTION “ Ambassador.” —It seems to be imagined by some speakers that an “ ambassador ” is not dignified enough, and they insist on giving the “ or ” its full “ o ” sound as if it were

spelt " ore.” The word ought to be , treated like other English words end- ; ing in “or,” that is to say, the pronunciation should be “ er ” as it is in “sailor,” “orator,” “executor,” etc. An exception may be made in the case of “mortgagor,” because it is important to stress the I mark which distinguishes it from “mortgagee,” though the best authorities do not countenance the “or ” in this way. In this country at any rate the vital distinction is thus instinctively insisted on, and, in | my opinion, quite rightly. i “ Transmit.”—-This word, which j may sometimes be heard over the air as “ trahnzmit,” with the long “ a ” as in “ father, ” may be taken j as typical of a very large group, including well over eighty words, | whose first element is “ trans.” In respect of the long or short “ a ” in "trans,” these fall into two groups. In the first, which include the vast majority, both the long and the short vowels are used by different speakers, but the short “ a ” is to be preferred, for example, “ transform,” " transcend," “ transatlantic.” " Transient ” and “ transience ” seem to be the only words of the group in | which the short is obligatory. In-I the other group stand “translate,” " translation,” and " transitive,” with its derivatives, in which the long sound is preferable. There would seem to be no special reason why these should be thus distinguished, but is is perhaps not without significance that both “translate” and “ transitive ” savour strongly of the classroom. The distinction is not traditional, for in the eighteenth century all the “ trans ” group had the short vowel, according to the best authorities, without exception. “ Les Miserables ” again.—As the outcome of a “lengthy and somewhat heated debate,” I am appealed to once more on the question of the pronunciation of this title. As usual in such cases I am reluctantly compelled to give the answer in English spelling, which not only looks horrible, but really fails to give the required information. The nearest thing possible is represented by the form “ Lay, Meezerahbl.” with the stresses about equal on “Meez” and “ ahbl.” This does indicate that the French “i” in “Mis” differs from the English short “ i,” that the “ a ” of “ abl ” is long, not short as it is in the English “ miserable,” and that the final “s ” is silent. Actually, if we compare any two languages we find that all the vowels and dipthongs and some of the consonants are different in the two, even the “ corresponding ” vowels, represented by the same letter, such as the “i” in the “mis” of “miserable.” In the case in question, for example, only the first “1,” the “z,” the “m.” and the “ b ” are really the same in French and in English. The “e ” of " Les,” which we represent by “ ay,’ is a sound which we have not in standard English, and the diphthong represented by “ay” only a rough approximation to it. The short “i” of “Mis” is in French a much “closer” sound than the English short “ i,” and we give a sort of hint of this by using the “ee, which, of course, does not really convey the French sound. The French I “ r,” pronounced in the throat, cannot be rendered at all by any English symbol, so we just leave it. No symbol that we could use would express the difference between the French “ a ” and the English “ a ” in “ abl." but there is a real difference. Finally, the "1" of " able ”is treated quite differently by a French and an English speaker, but it would be hopeless to attempt a description of the difference. Seeing then that our very organs of speech are so different. it is not surprising that the I French and English nations fought like cat and dog for so many centuries, and no kind of “ongtongt cordial'll” can ever bridge the gulf that separates them. AUTHORITIES Some other readers of these notes may be glad of such information as is asked for by a correspondent concerning “ Daniel Jones ” and “ The Oxford Dictionary,” to which I so often have to refer. Daniel Jones is the author of “An English Pronouncing Dictionary,” published, I think, at eight or nine shillings. As the work of a professional phonetician, ,who has devoted his life to this study it is, in my opinion, the best authority available on the pronunciation of the “best English,” that of the best educated class in England. “ The Oxford Dictionary ” is the title of more than one publication. The great, the colossal O.D. is beyond the reach of the average private purse, costing about £35, and must be consulted in public libraries. The “Shorter 0.D.” costs about £4. The " Concise 0.D.,” which I recommend to all students, costs about nine shillings. It is based on the great dictionary, but has the advantage that it is more up to date, as the 1 earlier portions of the great work are now over 50 years old. This edition includes definitions, etymologies, and pronunciations, so that it is a book of general utility. The cheap little “Pocket 0.D.” I have found quite useless, but possibly it may meet the needs of crossword 1 puzzle enthusiasts. The scope of ! the work of Daniel Jones is strictly i limited to pronunciation.