Gifts

Wife. Her is. Her uses that man sheamfull; her rags him every neet of her loif. Who was her feyther? Boatman. Whoy, Singing Jemmy.

Wife. Oi don't think as how oi ever knowed Singing Jemmy. Was he old Soaker's brother?

Boatman. Ees he was.

He lived a top o' Hell Bank.

He was the wickedest, swearinest man as ever I knowed. I
should think as how he was the wickedest man in the world,
and they say he had the rheumatiz so bad.

WILTSHIRE DIALECT.

A harnet zet in a hollur tree,
A proper spiteful twoad was he;
And merrily zung while he did zet,
His sting as shearp as a bagganet:
"Oh! who so fine and bold as I?
I fears not bee, nor wapse, nor vly."
A bittle up thuck tree did clim,
And scornfully did look at him;
Zays he, "Zur harnet, who give thee
A right to zet in thuck there tree?
Vor all you zengs so nation fine,
I tell 'ee, 'tis a house of mine."

The harnet's conscience velt a twinge;
But grawin bowld wi' his long stinge,
Zays he, "Possession's the best laaw;
Zo here th' shant put a claaw;

Be off, and leave the tree to me,
The mixen's good enough for thee."

Just then a yuckel passin by,

Was axed by them the cause to try :

Ha, ha! I zee how 'tis," zays he;

66 They'll make a vamous munch vor me!"

His bill was shearp, his stomach lear,
Zo up a snapped the caddlin pair.

PECULIARITIES

OF THE COCKNEY DIALECT.

I. Phonology.

$ 50. 1. The Londoner or Cockney pronounces w for v, and v for w; as, weal for veal, vicked for wicked. He seems not to have understood why the consonant u of the Latins, which was not distinguished in writing from the vowel u,

should be pronounced v (=bh), while the consonant u of the Anglo-Saxons, which had a distinct character from the vowel u, was pronounced w. And it must be confessed that the rule is somewhat arbitrary. This interchange of w and v is the most offensive peculiarity of the Cockney dialect..

2. The Londoner is also accustomed to omit the sound of hat the beginning of words, and to pronounce it where it does not belong; as, art for heart; harm for arm.

3. He has a fondness for the sound of j (=dzh); as, furbidge for furbish; radidges for radishes; rubbidge for rubbish; to scrowdge for to crowd; skrimidge for skirmish ; squeedge for squeeze.

4. He sometimes transposes letters, especially where r is concerned; as, ax for ask; palaretic for paralytic; perdigious for prodigious; perwent for prevent; progidy for prodigy; vemon for venom; vemonous for venomous.

5. He sometimes inclines to repeat the same vowel; as, colloguing for colleaguing; nisi prisi for nisi prius; obstropolous for obstreperous.

6. He sometimes employs a lingual d or t after a lingual n or 1, by epenthesis or paragoge; as, drownded for drowned; gownd for gown; partender for partner; bacheldor for bachelor; margent for margin; regiment for regimen; sermont for sermon; surgeont for surgeon; verment for vermin.

7. He employs a t after a sibilant; as, clost and closter for close and closer; nyst and nyster for nice and nicer; sinst for since, wonst for once.

8. He sometimes makes an unnecessary syllable; as, beast-es for beasts; fist-es for fists; ghost-es for ghosts; mist-es for mist; post-es for post.

9. He sometimes lays a false accent; as, blasphemous for blasphemous; charácter for character; contráry for contrary

II. Derivation of Words,

1. The Londoner sometimes confounds two different forms, as, contagious for contiguous; eminent for imminent; humorous for humorsome; ingeniously for ingenuously; luxurious for luxuriant; scrupulosity for scruple; successfully for successively.

2. He sometimes forms words on the wrong model; as, admiraltry for admiralty; commonality for commonalty; curous for curious; curosity for curiosity; debiliated for debilitated; despisable for despicable; loveyer for lover; mayoraltry for mayoralty; necessuated for necessitated; stupendious for stupendous.

3. He sometimes forms words on a false model; as, attacted like transacted; duberous and industerous like boisterous; musicianer like practitioner; jocotious like ferocious; summonsed as if from summons; vulgularity like singularity.

4. He sometimes mistakes the word altogether; as, ag gravate for irritate; an otomy for anatomy; argufy for signify; conquest for concourse; mislest for molest; moval for model; pee-ashes for piazzas; refuge for refuse; stagnated for staggered; vocation for vacation.

III. Composition of Words.

The Londoner sometimes retains the prefixes be and a, which have been discarded; as, begrudge, unbeknown; acold, a-dry, a-hungry.

IV. Inflection.

1. The Londoner sometimes repeats the definite article; as, the t'other for the other.

2. He uses double comparatives and superlatives; as, worser for worse.

3. He forms hisn, ourn, hern, yourn, like mine, thine. 4. He forms hisself and theirselves regularly.

5. He has adopted the modern inflection in some verbs, where it has not been generally followed; as, see'd for saw; know'd for knew; com'd for came.

6. He forms fit for fought; comp. light, pret. lit.

7. He uses the past tense for the perfect participle; as, fell for fallen; rose for risen; took for taken; went for gone; wrote for written.

8. He uses no-hows for no-how, and no-wheres for nowhere.

V. Syntax or Construction.

1. He uses the accusative for the nominative; as, can us for can we; have us for have we; may us for may we; shall us for shall we.

2. He employs double negatives, like the ancient AngloSaxons; as, I don't know nothing about it.

3. The use of the ancient full expression, which has been abridged in modern times; as, and so for simple so; how that and as how, denoting the simple fact; if so be as how, denoting a contingency; for to, denoting a purpose; for why or because why, denoting the reason.

4. Idiomatic expressions; as, a few while for a little while; to fetch a walk for to take a walk; what is gone with such an one? for what is become of such an one? to learn for to teach; what may his name be? for what is his name? what should he be? for what is he? to remember for to remind; gone dead like gone crazy; this here for this; that there for that.

The following little dialogue is said to have passed between a London citizen and his servant.

Citizen. Villiam, I vants my vig.

Servant. Vitch vig, sir?

Citizen. Vy, the vite vig in the vooden vig-box, vitch I vore last Vensday at the westry.

§ 51. Concerning the origin of the Lowland Scotch there are two theories. The current one is, that, like the present English, it is derived from the Anglo-Saxon, and consequently introduced from the South. The marriage of Malcolm Canmor with Margaret, sister of Prince Edgar of England, which introduced many of the English into the court of Scotland, and the intercourse between the Scots of the South and the English of the North, and, finally, the immigration of English families into Scotland, have each, severally or collectively, been put forward as the immediate causes of the introduction of the English language into Scotland.

In support of the other theory it is alleged, 1. That there

are in Lowland Scotch a number of words which, although Teutonic, were never Anglo-Saxon. 2. That the causes adduced are insufficient to effect the change in point. 3. That so far from the Lowland Scotch being a mere dialect of the English, it has all the qualities of a regular and cultivated language. Hence the conclusion that the Scottish is no daughter of the Anglo-Saxon, but a sister; no derived language, but a parallel one.

While there appears to be evidence that the Gothic of the Scandinavian branch was introduced into the northern part of Scotland at a period earlier than that in which the Danes made their incursions into England in the days of Alfred, still this will not account for the Teutonic words which abound in the language spoken in the South. The language of Orkney may be Norse or Scandinavian; that of the Lothians may be Saxon.

In the way of orthography, the most characteristic difference between the English and Scotch is the use, on the part of the latter, of qu for wh; as, quhen, quhare, quhat, for when, where, what. The substitution of sch for sh; as, scho for she; and of z for the old English 3 (as zour for seowr, your), is as much Northern English as Scotch.

In pronunciation, the substitution of d for (if not a point of spelling), as, in fader for father; of a for o, as baith for both; of s for sh, as sall for shall; and the use of the guttural sound of ch, as in loch, nocht, are the same.

The ejection of n before t, or an allied sound, and the lengthening of the preceding vowel by way of compensation, as in begouth for beginning, seems truly Scotch. It is the same change that in Greek turns the radical syllable ¿ðóντ into ὁδούς.

The formation of the plural of verbs in -s rather than in -th (the Anglo-Saxon form), is Northern English as well as Scotch Scotch, slepys, lovys; Northern English, slepis, lovis; Old English, slepen, loven; Anglo-Saxon, slepiað, lupias.

The formation of the plural number of the genitive by the addition of the syllable -is (blastis, birdis, bloomis), instead of the letter s, blasts, birds, blooms, carries with it a metric