BILLIARDS

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18014, 26 November 1926, Page 4

BILLIARDS

THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA 3RITANNICA ON BILLIARDS. By RISO LEVI. Author of “Billiards: The Strokes of the Game ” annd “ Billiards for the f (Copyright.! In my last article I gave reasons ■why. In my opinion, the word “ billiards ” was not only preferable to, but also more correct than the word “ billiard,” and stated that the British Press almost invariably used “ billiards ” as the noun-adjective in relation to anything appertaining to the game. WHAT MY CRITICS HAVE SAID. A very eminent man of letters with whom I have had some friendly correspondence differs entirely from me on this question, arid has told me, in one of the letters, that otir lexicographers and the “ Encyclopaedia Britannica,” and not the British Press, are the authorities regarding correct English. In addition to this, the editor of “ The Billiard Player,” in commenting on a letter of mine on this subject, made use of these -words:— “ We think it is largely a question for the lexicographers, and these seem to be agreed that the adjective form of * billiards ’ is * billiard.’ ” My critics, however, appear to have overlooked the fact that I have never stated that there is no such word as “ billiard.” My argument has only been that “ billiards ” is preferable to “ billiard.” As both words exist, our dictionaries—most of which, by the way, are getting a bit ancient—are of little or no assistance in deciding a question of this nature. Time was when billiards used to be spelled " billards,” 41 bilyards.” “ halliards,” etc. In Spenser's “ Mother Hubbard Tales ” there are these lines:— “A thousand vrayes he could them entertain "With all the thriftless games that may be found With mumming and with marking all around With dice, with cards, with halliards farre unfit,” and consequently in the days when the word 44 billiards ” was first coined, and for a long time afterwards, it must have been correct to refer to the game either as 44 balliards ” Or 44 billiards.” A time must at length have arrived, however, before 44 balliards ” became obsolete through desuetude, when, although either term could be used, 44 billiards ” was preferable to 44 balliards.” And my contention—for the reasons given iri my last article—is that to-day f even though 44 billiard table,” 44 billiard champion,” ete_ may not be incorrect, “ billiards table,” 44 billiards champion,” etc., are preferable terms. If they are not, why does the British Press, as a whole, make use of them? MY REPLY TO MY CRITICS. Few of the famous dictionaries which I have examined are very modern. FOf example, Vol. 1 of Murray’s Dictionary • —this contains only words beginning with A and B—was published in 1888, the Century Dictionary in 1889, and my edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica —the eleventh edition—is dated 1910. and the impression that was left on my mtrrd after examining n considerable number of these works was that a very large percentage of learned lexicographers have had little or no acquaintance with billiards. Cassell's New English Dictionary, published in 1919, states that billiards is 44 a game with ivory balls.” Composition balls might not have existed for all the reference that is made to them. Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary, published in 1896, makes the same strange mistake—composition balls were popular long before 1896; indeed, it states that billiards is “ a game played on a rectangular table with smalt ivory balls.” Why small balls? And Murray’s Dictionary reminds one of the billiards table makers who, in their catalogues, always describe the ivOry balls which they offer for sale as “solid ivory balls,” for it actually defines billiards as 44 a game played With solid ivory balls.” As a matter of fact, the authors of even the most recent dictionaries appear to be wholly ignorant of the fact that any other balls but ivories are ever used for billiards. As for the article on. billiards in the

] “ Encyclopaedia Britannica.” the feeling that came over me. as J read it carefully, was one of consternation that a composition so incorrect in details, and so hideously ungrammatical, should have been allowed to find its way into this mighty repository of human knowledge. My critic, the eminent man of letters, has stated that our lexicographers and our encyclopaedias, and not the British Press, are authorities regarding C6i*heet English. 1 wonder what he will say* after reading the article to which 1 have just referred. To draw attention to all its errors would require several newspaper columns: but it will only be necessary’ to make a few quotations from it to prove that I have been guilty of no exaggeration! This is an extract, not from two different paragraphs, but from. One and the same paragraph:— “ If both balls are struck simultaneously’ ... If the white ball be struck first . . Here we have the present tense and the subjunctive mood after 44 if ” in the same paragraph. This is another:— “ . . . various substitutes have therefore been tried for ivory, such as CrVStalate or bOnzoline (a celluloid compound), and even hollow steel, but their elasticity is inferior to ivory, so that the ball rebounds at a wider angle when it strikes.” What ball ? And when it strikes what? And what is hollow steel? And why is the elasticity of crystalates and bonzolines inferior to that of ivory’ balls if the former throw a wider angle? And this is another:— “ Long jennies to the top pocket are a difficult and pretty stroke.” Comment on this ghastly horror is unnecessary-. As regards incorrect statements, the following three extracts will suffice:— “ The tip of the cue is usually a leather cap or pad.” Why usually? I have been playing billiards for more than forty’ y-ears, and though I have been in some hotel billiards room or other in very nearly every city and large town in Great Britain and Ireland, I have never seen a cue tipped with any’ other material than leather, nor have I ever heard of a cue tip called a cap or a pad. “ If bath balls are struck simultaneously’ it is considered that the fed is struck first.” Apart from the not too elegant, grammar of this sentence, just the reverse fe the case, for if, in the opinion of the referee, the object bails are struck simultaneously and the cue ball afterwards enters a pocket, the object white is considered to have been struck first. HOW M*ANY LEGS HAS A BIL--ILLARDS TABLE? “ How many legs has a billiards table ? ” used to be a gpod Catch forty years ago, and it is just as good a Catch to-day. Ask anyone who does not play billiards, but who has seen billiards tables, this question, and >’ou will almost invariably be told that it has six. You chn catch people With this joke even in a billiards room, if 3-011 tell them that they’ must not look at the table until they- answer you. In the minds of very many people six pockets mean six legs. Before reading this article you would, however, have been quite ready to bet that the “ Encyclopaedia Britannica ” would be able to give you correct information as to the number of legs which support a fullsize English billiards table, if it referred td this matter at all. Who would have believed that the writer of its article on billiards was ignorant on this question? Yet, if 3'ou refer to Vol. 1 of the eleventh edition, published in 1910, you will find this howler—y'ouwill realty':— “ The English table consists of a framework of mahogany or other hard wood, with six legs, and strong enough to bear the weight of five slates, each 2 2-sft wide by 6ft lMn, and about two inches thick.” In more than fort> r years’ experience, I have never seen a full-size table with less than eight legs, and the paragraph quoted is not one that has been repdinted from old editions, because chronologically the article is up to date, and the very fact that it refers to slates Of two inches in thickness is sufficient proof that the “ Encyclopaedia Britannica informs the world that modem English billiards tables have only six legs!”