Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

Truly these gentlemen must have been singularly unfortunate in the choice of their company, if they ever heard that the Americans were discontented at being told that they did not speak English. They must have been equally unlucky too, if they have not learned, what any man at all acquainted with the two countries knows perfectly well, that the English language is spoken with far more purity in America, than in any part of the British dominions. This, no doubt, will appear very extraordinary to Edinburgh reviewers, since there are many persons in England, much better informed than they, who have been surprised to hear Americans talk English at all. Strange, however, as it may seem, it is nevertheless literally true, that the lan guage of parliament and the language of good society in England is almost the universal language of America; and that no part of the population of America, except the negroes, speak the English language, so ill as the mass of the Scotch, Irish, and English nations. Whilst the pronunciation of the two former is ludicrously singular, whilst almost every county in England has a dialect so different, as to be almost unintelligible, and so amusing as to form a prominent part of the wit of the theatre: the United States contain a population of seven millions, scattered over an immense extent of country, yet marked by so small a shade of difference in language, that, though among ourselves, we can recognize, by a slight variation of accent, the residents of the south from those of the north; there is nothing like a settled provincialism; no patois, nothing that can distinguish an American as a Londoner, a Yorkshireman, a Somersetshireman, not to mention a Scotchman or an Irishman, may be distinguished. There is, indeed, nothing miraculous in this, since it may be ascribed to very obvious causes. Thus, the first emigrants to America were dissenters; and the very act of dissent implies a certain degree of previous investigation and knowledge. They came too, principally from the cities of England, where the pronunciation is naturally better than in the remote counties. But the chief reason is, that the people of America are much better educated than those of any part of the British dominions: the best English writings are much more generally diffused throughout America than in England; and the

lower classes in America are much more fluent and eloquent in conversation than the same rank of people abroad. Moreover, as there is in this country no aristocracy of fashion to introduce foolish innovations, our standard of language and of pronunciation is more permanent: we appeal to the fixed and authorized English classics, not to the whims of fashionable fops and cockneys in London. It is obvious therefore, that as our criterion of language is more regularly established, and less liable to change; and as the great diffusion of education among us enables almost every one to conform to that standard; there is absolutely less danger of innovation in America than in Great Britain. An Irishman may there be permitted to widen his es and as, and after crossing the Irish say, may spaik as he plai ses; or a Scotchman retain his fawtal haybit of drawling; a Welshman think it no fice but a firtue, to sharpen his consonants; and a native of Somersetshire be zure that his va ther's pronunciation was right. A hungry Londoner may heat an hegg with winegar, or take a hairing; he is at full liberty to call a very dirty fellow a nice man, or a quiet beaf-steak shop, a crack house; but these elegancies are quite unknown in America.

The result of this state of things is, that except in a few remote spots, where the foreign dialect has not yet worn off, almost the only white persons in America who speak bad English, are the natives of Great Britain. We can, moreover, assure the Edinburgh reviewers, that if they will undertake a journey to London, they will hear, on the road, more bad grammar, more improper pronunciation, more provincialisms, than are to be met with in travelling from the district of Maine to New Orleans. If, in saying this, we relied on our own personal experience, we would speak less confidently, since we have never actually been along the whole of this route. But to show that we are not exceedingly prejudiced, we shall quote the words of an English author, the last edition of whose work was printed in 1809: "Though," says he, "the people of London are erroneous in the pronunciation of many words, the inhabitants of every other place are erroneous in many more. Nay, harsh as the sentence may seem, those at a considerable distance from the capital do not only mispronounce many words taken separately, but they scarce

ly pronounce with purity a single word, syllable, or letter." Then as to the corruptions introduced by American writers, we think we could select from the popular writers of Great Britain, Miss Seward or Miss Owenson for instance, more bad writing, more deviations from pure native English, than are to be found in all the volumes written on this side of the Atlantic since the landing at Plymouth.

We go even farther. As far as our observation extends, the few innovations introduced among us have been more suddenly rebuked and censured in America, than any similar ones in England. We can readily call to mind every word in common use in America, which is not authorized by the pure English writers. We have, for instance, lengthy, a superfluous word in the place of long. We say a man was notified of a thing, instead of "its being notified to him;" a foolish French idiom. In congress the verb to predicate is often used, not in its logical sense to affirm, but as synonymous with founded; thus one thing is said to be predicated on another. We use the verb to advocate; a word which, if it be new, is, in our opinion, by no means a bad one, since it expresses what otherwise would require a periphrasis, supporting by debate any proposition. These, and a few others, not amounting in the whole to ten, are the only words which may be deemed in general use throughout America; and we happen to recollect them easily, because they have been ridiculed so unsparingly that they are perfect outlaws. We ourselves were taught at school to laugh at them as foolish innovations; and both in conversation and in writing, scarcely any occasion is omitted of decrying the use of them. So far, therefore, are the Americans from wishing to abjure their allegiance to the masters of the English language, that we claim a more rigid submission to their authority. So far are the Americans from deviating into barbarisms, that the English is, we repeat, spoken with more purity on this side of the Atlantic, than in England. That we are perfectly serious in this belief, need not be added in America, where the fact is quite notorious: but if any proof of the fact were wanting, this very article of the Edinburgh review would be abundantly sufficient, as it shows clearly how deficient in grammar, are the very persons who enjoy the highest critical reputation in England. "This American tongue

is distinguished," say they, " from the original English, in the first place, by a great multitude of words which are radically and entirely new, and as utterly foreign as if they had been adopted from the Hebrew or Chinese; in the second place, by a variety of new compounds and combinations of words, which are still known in the parent tongue; and thirdly by the perversion of a still greater number of original English words from their proper use or signification, by employing nouns substantive for verbs, for instance; and adjectives for substantives, &c. We shall set down a few examples of each.

"In the first class, we may reckon the words multifluvian, cosmogyral, crass, role, gride, conglaciate, colon and coloniarch, trist and contristed, thirl, gerb, ludibrious, croupe, scow, emban, lowe, brume, brumal," &c. &c.

Here then are nineteen words which are declared to be ra dically and entirely new, and as utterly foreign as if they were adopted from the Hebrew or Chinese.

The inaccuracy of this declaration may be imagined, when we shall have proved, as we shall do presently, that of these words a great number are so far from being new, that they are to be found not only in the best English writers, but even in the most common English dictionaries; that those which can be considered as new, are quite as foreign in America as in England; and that the only word peculiar to America, is so, because the object it describes is to be found no where else, and was, of course, to be designated by no other than a new word. Let us descend to particulars:

1st. Crass, we are told, is a word radically and entirely new, and utterly foreign.

Brown (an English author,) did not seem to think so, when he said that "Iron in aqua fortis will fall into ebullition, with noise and emication, as also a crass and fumid exhalation.

Nor Woodward (another English author,) or he would not have mentioned that "the metals are diffused and scattered amongst the crasser, and more unprofitable matter."

Nor Dr. Johnson, whose dictionary contains crass; [crassus, Iat.] Gross, coarse, not thin, not comminuted, not subtile, not consisting of small parts.

Nor Walker, who says, crass means gross, coarse, not subtile. Nor Sheridan, who observes, that the signification of crass is gross, not subtile.

2d. As to gride, another of these utterly foreign and radically new Americanisms, some apology maybe found for us in Spenser, who, we do not think is an American poet, and yet mys

His poignant spear, he thrust with puissant sway,

That through his thigh the mortal steel did gride.

Or in Milton, who, in Paradise Lost, a work written before the American revolution, observes,

The griding sword with discontinuous sway

Passed through him.

Or in Dr. Johnson, who has

To gride, [gridare, Italian.] To cut, to make way by cutting. Or in Walker, To gride, v. n. to cut.

Or in Sheridan, who has gride, v. n. to cut.

3d. For information as to the American word conglaciate, so radically and entirely new, and utterly foreign, we refer the Edinburgh Reviewers to the vulgar errors of Brown, where may be seen this phrase, “No other doth properly conglaciate but water." They will find, moreover, in Johnson, that to conglaciate (from the Latin word conglaciatus,) means to turn to ice; an assertion which is very ably supported by Sheridan and Walker, at the word conglaciate.

4th. The new American word thirl, it seems, by a reference to Johnson's dictionary, is adopted neither from the Hebrew nor Chinese, but is of a Saxon family, and was probably in use some time before the birth of Columbus. It is in fact so old, as to be almost out of date, except by a sort of poetic license; for it is now pronounced and written thrill, says Ainsworth, who wrote about sixty-nine years ago.

5th. Brumal is another of these words which are radically and entirely new, and as utterly foreign as if adopted from the Hebrew or Chinese. We never heard it suggested that Brown belonged to either of those nations, till we observed this sentence. "About the brumal solstice it hath been observed, and even to a

« EdellinenJatka »