OUR MOTHER TONGUE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23637, 22 October 1938, Page 18

OUR MOTHER TONGUE

RANDOM NOTES By Professor Arnold Wall PRINTERS OR AUTHORS? One is often tempted to be angry with an author for some blunder or inconsistency when it may be the printer who has sinned. So we ought to be very careful and to suspend judgment if the facts are not to be ascertained. Two examples are supplied to me: ought we to write “ French window ” or “ french window ”? Both are commonly used. I read a certain author whose practice is likely to be right and having noted that he uses the capital letter am presently confronted with the other form so that his example cannot be followed. The same thing happens with the verbs ending in “-ise” or “-ize,” both of which are still allowed. In these cases the probability seems to be that it is the printer who should be held responsible. THE MARRIAGE “WILL”

I am asked to “ give my verdict ” on the grammatical use of “ shall ” and “will.” Obviously this would be impossible in the space at my command, but I may at anv rate answer the specific question which my correspondent asks, why the words “I will" are used in the marriage service instead of “I shall.” According to the simple old rule “ shall ” in the first person represents the future event simply as a future event, but “ will ” is used in the first person when the speaker wishes to represent the future event as determined by his own present will. In other words “ I shall ” usually means " I am going to ” but “ I will ” means “I am determined ’or lam willing to.” If, then, the bride should answer the important question in the words “ I shall ” she would not imply any more than she does when she says “ I shall go to town today.” Something more than that is required of her at that solemn moment. IDIOMS IN QUESTIONS I am asked whether it is permissible to omit “ to ” after the verb “to enable” as in “to enable you effect ” fpr “ enable vou to effect. Certainly not; such a construction is not idiomatic English. After the verb “to help” the omission is very common, especially in American, and may be seen in English writers of repute, yet it is unauthorised. After the verb “to make ” as in “ to make ; t go,” “to ” is, however, normally omitted and its inclusion is archaic. But “ enable ” cannot be used in this way. A DELICATE POINT “Assume,” “interlude,” etc. The pronunciation of "the words of this large group, in which a long u of French or Latin origin is preceded by e or 1, has already been discussed in these notes, but I return to them at the request of a correspondent who would like to know “how far the substitution of oo for ew has gone in this country.” This observer thinks that 90 per cent, of us say oo in these words, and I should agree that it is so. It may be observed that languages, while continualy changing, do not change as a whole, but, as a plant is seen to grow only at certain points, so at any given period, it will be found that only certain sounds, or groups of sounds, tend to change. In our time the group under discussion Is in this state, as is well illustrated by the divergence of opinion among the expert authorities concerning them. In all of them the ew sound is traditional, and we find little tendency to use the oo in the eighteenth century, though those beginning with d and t, such as “duke” and “tune,” were vulgarly pronounced with the oo as they now are by Americans. Now we find that the u in “absolute,” for example, is oo according to Fowler, both oo and ew in the Oxford Dictionary, oo as recorded by Daniel Jones in the educated speech, and 00 (by inference) according to the 8.8. C. which recommends “ resolooshon,” not " rezzolewshon.” The fact becomes apparent that, as my friend observes, the majority of speakers, both here and at Home, are discarding the traditional ew and usino 00. What should the plain man do under these circumstances? If he says “oo ” he may be corrected by the know-alls and the reciters, and if he says “ ew ” he runs the risk of seeming “ superior ” and wanting to put others right. In my opinion the wisest thing to do is to go with the majority, deciding in your mind that the change will inevitably come and that it is best to recognise it. as the above-mentioned authorities have done. It is, of course, very nice to feel that you are on the side of the angels, but if you choose the other side and are taken to task you can put up a very good defence by giving the verdict of those experts. I may add that in many words of the group the choice is not merely between “ oo ” and “ ew.” "Assume,” for instance, is “ assewn,” “ assoom,” " ashewn,” and “ ashoom,” of which series the first is undoubtedly “ the best,” and is recommended by all authorities. This last fact shows that the victory of “ oo ” is far less striking after “e” than after “1,” and that in the “s ” group “ew ” may ultimately prevail. Basil.—One who bears this Christian name tells me that his parents and relatives all call him “ Bassel,” but his friends and acquaintances say “ Bazil ” or “ Baz.” This is odd because the only correct pronunciation is that with the z, which is the normal sound of s in that position. This is shown by the pronunciation of such words as " rising,”' “ Basingstoke,” etc., though there are, of course, exceptions such as “ basin.” “Aged.”—One sometimes hears over the air, in the accounts of stock sales, the word “aged” used of cattle or horses with the pronunciation in two syllables. By a curious convention it has been agreed that the disyllabic pronunciation must be confined to human beings; beasts are said to be “ ayjd ” not “ ayjid.” And in the case of human beings it is “ ayjd ” in such phrases as “ a man aged 50.” The distinction Is convenient but does not seem to depend at all upon logic, and it is not easy to, say how old it is for our older authorities ignore the point. 1 should guess that “ ayjid ” is a relic of our old usage when the “ed ” was universally syllabicbefore the sixteenth century. The loss of that syllable was loudly lamented by many, including Dean Swift, who blamed the poets for it.