MISCELLANEOUS NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE

ADDENDA TO HOMOPHONES IN TRACT II

Several correspondents complain of the incompleteness of the list of Homophones in Tract II. The object of that list was to convince readers of the magnitude of the mischief, and the consequent necessity for preserving niceties of pronunciation: evidence of its incompleteness must strengthen its plea. The following words may be added; they are set here in the order of the literary alphabet.

Add to Table I (p. 7)

Also note that so should be added to sew, sow, and that the words leech, leach, are not sufficiently credited with etymological variety: [see below p. 33].

To Table II add

To Table VIII

The following words, the absence of which has been noted, are not true homophones:—

To Table IX add

To Shakespearean obsoletes p. 27 add

THE SKILFUL LEECH

The Poet Laureate has pointed out that several useful words have been lost to the English language because their identity in sound with other words renders it impossible to use them without the risk either of being misunderstood or of calling up undesirable associations. It is owing to this cause that English—or, at least, the English of Great Britain—has no word that can correctly be used as a general designation for a member of the healing profession. In America, I believe, the word is 'physician'; but in England that appellation belongs to one branch of the profession exclusively. The most usual term here is 'doctor'; but the M.D. rightly objects to the application of this title to his professional brother who has no degree; and in a university town to say that John Smith is a doctor would be inconveniently ambiguous. 'Medical man' is cumbrous, and has the further disadvantage (in these days) of not being of common gender. Now the lack of any proper word for a meaning so constantly needing to be expressed is certainly a serious defect in modern (insular) English. The Americans have some right to crow over us here; but their 'physician' is a long word; and though it has been good English in the sense of medicus for six hundred years, it ought by etymology to mean what physicien does in French, and physicist in modern English. Our ancestors were better off in this respect than either we or the Americans. The only native word to denote a practiser of the healing art is leech, which is better than the foreign 'physician' because it is shorter. It was once a term of high dignity: Chaucer could apply it figuratively to God, as the healer of souls; and even in the sixteenth century a poet could address his lady as 'My sorowes leech'. Why can we not so use it now? Why do we not speak of 'The Royal College of Leeches'? Obviously, because a word of the same form happens to be the name of an ugly little animal of disgusting habits. If I were to introduce my medical attendant to a friend with the words 'This is my leech', the gentleman (or lady) so presented would think I was indulging in the same sort of pleasantry as is used when a coachman is called a 'whip'; and he (or she) would probably not consider the joke to be in the best of taste. Of course all educated people know that it was once not unusual to speak of a man of medicine as a 'leech'; but probably there are many who imagine that this designation was a disparaging allusion to the man's tool of trade, and that it could be applied only to inferior members of the profession. The ancient appellation of the healer is so far obsolete that if I were to answer a question as to a man's profession with the words 'Oh, he is a leech', there would be some risk of being misunderstood to mean that he was a money-lender.

Etymologists generally have regarded the name of the bloodsucking animal as the same word with leech a physician, the assumption being that the animal received its name from its use as a remedial agent. But the early forms, both in English and Low German, show that the words are originally unconnected. The English for medicus was in the tenth century lǽce or léce, and in the thirteenth century leche; the word for sanguisuga was in the tenth century lyce, and in the thirteenth century liche. According to phonetic law the latter word should have become litch in modern English; but it very early underwent a punning alteration which made it homophonous with the ancient word for physician. The unfortunate consequence is that the English language has hopelessly lost a valuable word, for which it has never been able to find a satisfactory substitute.

H.B.

DIFFERENTIATION OF HOMOPHONES

On this very difficult question the attitude of a careful English speaker is shown in the following extract from a letter addressed to us:

METAL, METTLE: and PRINCIPAL, PRINCIPLE

'I find that I do not naturally distinguish metal and mettle in pronunciation, tho' when there is any danger of ambiguity I say metal for the former and met'l for the latter; and I should probably do so (without thinking about it) in a public speech. In my young days the people about me usually pronounced met'l for both. Theoretically I think the distinction is a desirable one to make; the fact that the words are etymologically identical seems to me irrelevant. The words are distinctly two in modern use: when we talk of mettle (meaning spiritedness) there is in our mind no thought whatever of the etymological sense of the word, and the recollection of it, if it occurred, would only be disturbing. So I intend in future to pronounce metal as metəl (when I don't forget). And I am not sure that metəl is, strictly speaking, a "spelling-pronunciation": It is possible that the difference in spelling originated in a difference of pronunciation, not the other way about. For metal in its literal sense was originally a scientific word, and in that sense may have been pronounced carefully by people who would pronounce it carelessly when they used it in a colloquial transferred sense approaching to slang.

'The question of principal and principle is different. When I was young, educated people in my circle always, I believe, distinguished them; so to this day when I hear principal pronounced as principle it gives me a squirm, tho' I am afraid nearly everybody does it now. That the words are etymologically distinct does not greatly matter; it is of more importance that I have sometimes been puzzled to know which word a speaker meant; if I remember right, I once had to ask.

'It would be worth while to distinguish flower and flour (which originally, like metal and mettle, were the same word); yet in practice it is not easy to make the difference audible. The homophony is sometimes inconvenient.'

CORRECTION TO TRACT II

On p. 37 of TRACT II the words 'the Anglo-prussian society which Mr. Jones represents' have given offence and appear to be inaccurate. The German title of the series in which Jones's Dictionary is one has the following arrangement of words facing the English title:

HERAUSGEGEBEN

UND

DER "ASSOCIATION PHONÉTIQUE INTERNATIONALE" GEWIDMET

VON

H. MICHAELIS,

and this misled me. I am assured that, though the dictionary may be rightly described as Anglo-Prussian, the Phonetic Association is Gallo-Scandinavian. In behalf of the S.P.E. I apologize to the A. Ph. I. for my mistake which has led one of its eminent associates to accuse me of bearing illwill towards the Germans. The logic of that reproach baffles me utterly.

[R.B.]

SOME LEXICAL MATTERS

FAST = QUICK or FIRM

'An Old Cricketer' writes:

'After reading your remarks on the ambiguity of the word fast (Tract III, p. 12) I read in the report of a Lancashire cricket match that Makepeace was the only batsman who was fast-footed. But for the context and my knowledge of the game I should have concluded that Makepeace kept his feet immovably on the crease; but the very opposite was intended. At school we used to translate ποδας ωκυς Αχιλλευς "swift-footed Achilles", and I took that to mean that Achilles was a sprinter. I suppose quick-footed would be the epithet for Makepeace.'

SPRINTER is a good word, though Sprinting Achilles could not be recommended.

BRATTLE

A correspondent from Newcastle writes advocating the recognition of the word brattle as descriptive of thunder. It is a good old echo-word used by Dunbar and Douglas and Burns and by modern English writers. It is familiar through the first stanza of Burns's poem 'To a Mouse'.

which is not suggestive of thunder. The N.E.D. explains this as 'to run with brattling feet, to scamper'.

In Burns's 'A Winter Night', it is the noisy confusion of biting Boreas in the bare trees and bushes:

It is possible that brattle has fallen into disuse through too indiscriminate application. After Burns's famous poem the word can establish itself only in the sense of a scurrying dry noise: it is too small for thunder.

We would call attention to the principle involved in this judgement, for it is one of the main objects of our society to assist and guide Englishmen in the use of their language by fully exposing the facts that should determine their practice. Every word has its history, and no word can prosper in the speech or writing of those who do not respect its inherited and unalterable associations; these cannot be got rid of by ignoring them. Littré in the preface to his dictionary claims for it this pre-eminent quality of usefulness, that it will enable his countrymen to speak and write good French by acquainting them with historic tradition, and he says that it was enthusiasm for this one purpose that sustained him in his great work. Its object was to harmonize the present use of the language with the past usage, in order that the present usage may possess all the fullness, richness, and certitude which it can have, and which naturally belong to it. His words are: 'Avant tout, et pour ramener à une idée mère ce qui va être expliqué dans la Préface, je dirai, définissant ce dictionnaire, qu'il embrasse et combine l'usage présent de la langue et son usage passé, afin de donner à l'usage présent toute la plénitude et la sûreté qu'il comporte.'

It is the intention of our society to offer only expert and well-considered opinion on these literary matters, which are often popularly handled in the newspapers and journals as fit subjects for private taste and uninformed prejudice: and since the Oxford Dictionary has done more fully for English what Littré did for French, our task is comparatively easy. But experts cannot be expected, all of them, to have the self-denying zeal of Émile Littré, and the worth of our tracts will probably improve with the increase of our subscribers.

BICKER

As Burns happens to use bickering as his epithet for the mouse's brattle, we may take this word as another illustration of Littré's principle. The N.E.D. gives the original meaning as skirmish, and quotes Shakespeare,

which a man transposing the third and fourth words might say to-day without rising above colloquial speech; but there is another allied signification which Milton has in

and this is followed by many later writers. It would seem therefore, if the word is to have a special sense, that it must be focused in the idea of something that both wavers and skirmishes, and this suggests another word which caught our eye in the dictionary, that is

BRANGLE

It is defined in the N.E.D. as 'a brawl, wrangle, squabble' and marked obsolete. It seems to differ from its numerous synonyms by the suggestion of what we call a muddle: that is an active wrangling which has become inextricably confused.

SURVIVALS IN LANCASHIRE SPEECH

Mr. Ernest Stenhouse sends us notes on Tract II, from which we extract the following:

'Poll (= to cut the hair) is still familiar in Lancashire. Tickle (unstable) is obsolescent but not yet obsolete. As a child I often heard meterly (= moderately): e.g. meterly fausse (? false) = moderately cunning. It may still be in use. Bout (= without = A.S. butan) is commonly heard.

'The words tabulated in Tract II, p. 34, and the following pairs are not homophones in Lancashire: stork, stalk; pattern, patten; because although the r in stork and pattern is not trilled as in Scotland, it is distinctly indicated by a modification of the preceding vowel, somewhat similar to that heard in the o͡re words (p. 35).

'Homophony may arise from a failure to make distinctions that are recognized in P.S.P. Thus in Lancashire the diphthong sound in flow, snow, bone, coal, those, &c., is very often pronounced as a pure vowel (cf. French eau, mot): hence confusion arises between flow and flaw, sow and saw, coal and call: both these vowel sounds tending to become indistinguishable from the French eau.'

FEASIBLE

Feasible is a good example of a word which appears in danger of being lost through incorrect and ignorant use. It can very well happen that a word which is not quite comfortable may feel its way to a useful place in defiance of etymology; and in such cases it is pedantry to object to its instinctive vagaries. But feasible is a well-set comfortable word which is being ignorantly deprived of its useful definite signification. In the following note Mr. Fowler puts its case clearly, and his quotations, being typically illustrative of the manner in which this sort of mischief comes about, are worthy of attention.

'With those who feel that the use of an ordinary word for an ordinary notion does not do justice to their vocabulary or sufficiently exhibit their cultivation, who in fact prefer the stylish to the working word, feasible is now a prime favourite. Its proper sense is "capable of being done, accomplished, or carried out". That is, it means the same as possible in one of the latter's senses, and its true function is to be used instead of possible where that might be ambiguous. A thunderstorm is possible (but not feasible). Irrigation is possible (or, indifferently, feasible). A counter-revolution is possible; i.e., (a) one may for all we know happen, or (b) we can if we choose bring one about; but, if b is the meaning, feasible is better than possible because it cannot properly bear sense a, and therefore obviates ambiguity.

'The wrong use of feasible is that in which, by a slipshod extension, it is allowed to have also the other sense of possible, and that of probable. This is described by the highest authority as "hardly a justifiable sense etymologically, and ... recognized by no dictionary". It is however becoming very common; in all the following quotations, it will be seen that the natural word would be either possible or probable, one of which should have been chosen:—Continuing, Mr. Wood said: "I think it is very feasible that the strike may be brought to an end this week, and it is a significant coincidence that ...". / Witness said it was quite feasible that if he had had night binoculars he would have seen the iceberg earlier. / We ourselves believe that this is the most feasible explanation of the tradition. / This would appear to offer a feasible explanation of the scaffold puzzle.'

PROTAGONIST

Mr. Sargeaunt (on p. 26) suggests that we might do well to keep the full Greek form of this word, and speak and write protagonistes. Familiarity with Agonistes in the title of Milton's drama, where it is correctly used as equivalent to 'mighty champion', would be misleading, and the rejection of the English form 'protagonist' seems otherwise undesirable. The following remarks by Mr. Fowler show that popular diction is destroying the word; and if ignorance be allowed its way we shall have a good word destroyed.

'The word that has so suddenly become a prime favourite with journalists, who more often than not make it mean champion or advocate or defender, has no right whatever to any of those meanings, and almost certainly owes them to the mistaking of the first syllable (representing Greek πρωτος "first") for προ "on behalf of"—a mistake made easy by the accidental resemblance to antagonist. "Accidental", since the Greek αγωνιστης has different meanings in the two words, in one "combatant", but in the other "play-actor". The Greek πρωταγωνιστης means the actor who takes the chief part in a play—a sense readily admitting of figurative application to the most conspicuous personage in any affair. The deuteragonist and tritagonist take parts of second and third importance, and to talk of several protagonists, or of a chief protagonist or the like, is an absurdity. In the newspapers it is a rarity to meet protagonist in a legitimate sense; but two examples of it are put first in the following collection. All the others are outrages on this learned-sounding word, because some of them distinguish between chief protagonists and others who are not chief, some state or imply that there are more protagonists than one in an affair, and the rest use protagonist as a mere synonym for advocate.

'Legitimate uses: The "cher Halévy" who is the protagonist of the amazing dialogue. / Marco Landi, the protagonist and narrator of a story which is skilfully contrived and excellently told, is a fairly familiar type of soldier of fortune.

'Absurd uses with chief, &c.: The chief protagonist is a young Nonconformist minister. / Unlike a number of the leading protagonists in the Home Rule fight, Sir Edward Carson was not in Parliament when.... / It presents a spiritual conflict, centred about its two chief protagonists, but shared in by all its characters.

'Absurd plural uses: One of the protagonists of that glorious fight for Parliamentary Reform in 1866 is still actively among us. / One of these immense protagonists must fall, and, as we have already foreshadowed, it is the Duke. / By a tragic but rapid process of elimination most of the protagonists have now been removed. / As on a stage where all the protagonists of a drama assemble at the end of the last act. / That letter is essential to a true understanding of the relations of the three great protagonists at this period. / The protagonists in the drama, which has the motion and structure of a Greek tragedy (Fy! fy!—a Greek tragedy and protagonists?).

'Confusions with advocate, &c.: The new Warden is a strenuous protagonist of that party in Convocation. / Mr ——, an enthusiastic protagonist of militant Protestantism. / The chief protagonist on the company's side in the latest railway strike, Mr ——. / It was a happy thought that placed in the hands of the son of one of the great protagonists of Evolution the materials for the biography of another. / But most of the protagonists of this demand have shifted their ground. / As for what the medium himself or his protagonists may think of them—for etymological purposes that is neither here nor there.

'Perhaps we need not consider the Greek scholar's feelings; he has many advantages over the rest of us, and cannot expect that in addition he shall be allowed to forbid us a word that we find useful. Is it useful? or is it merely a pretentious blundering substitute for words that are useful? Pro- in protagonist is not the opposite of anti-; -agonist is not the same as in antagonist; advocate and champion and defender and combatant are better words for the wrong senses given to protagonist; and protagonist in its right sense of the (not a) chief actor in an affair has still work to do if it could only be allowed to mind its own business.'

AMERICAN APPRECIATION

We are glad to reprint the following short extracts from the New York Times Book Review and Magazine, September 26, 1920.

'THE CAMPAIGN FOR PURE ENGLISH

'Among those who joined it (the S.P.E.) immediately were Arthur J. Balfour, A.C. Bradley, Austin Dobson, Thomas Hardy, J.W. Mackail, Gilbert Murray, Mrs. Humphry Ward, and Mrs. Wharton.... The rallying of these men and women of letters was not more significant than the prompt adhesion of the Professors of English in the various British Universities: W.M. Dixon, Oliver Elton, E.S. Gordon, C.H. Herford, W.P. Ker, G.C. Moore-Smith, F.W. Moorman, A. Quiller-Couch, George Saintsbury, and H.C.K. Wyld....

'There is a peril to the proper development of the language in offensive affectations, in persistent pedantry, and in other results of that comprehensive ignorance of the history of English, which we find plentifully revealed in many of our grammars. It is high time that men who love the language, who can use it deftly and forcibly, and who are acquainted with the principles and the processes of its growth, should raise the standard of independence....

'It is encouraging to realize that the atrophy of the word-making habit is less obvious in the United States than it is in Great Britain.... We cannot but regret that it is not now possible to credit to their several inventors American compounds of a delightful expressiveness—windjammer, loan-shark, scare-head, and that more delectable pussy-footed—all of them verbal creations with an imaginative quality almost Elizabethan in its felicity, and all of them examples of the purest English.... We Americans made the compound farm-hand, and employ it in preference to the British [English?] agricultural labourer.

'The attention of the officers of the society may be called to the late Professor Lounsbury's lively and enlightening History of the English Language, and to Professor George Philip Krapp's illuminating study of Modern English.

BRANDER MATTHEWS.'

REPORT

Of the proceedings of the Society for the first year ending Xmas, 1920.

The Society still remains governed by the small committee of its original founders: the support of the public and the press has been altogether satisfactory: the suggestions and programme which the committee originally put forward have met with nothing but favourable criticism; no opposition has been aroused, and we are therefore encouraged to meet the numerous invitations that we have received from all parts of the English-speaking world to make our activities more widely known. The sale of the Tracts has been sufficient to pay their expenses; and we are in this respect very much indebted to the Oxford University Press for its generous co-operation; for it has enabled us to offer our subscribers good workmanship at a reasonable price. The publication of this Tract IV closes our first 'year': we regret that the prevalent national disturbances have extended it beyond the solar period, but the conditions render explanation and apology needless.

Our list shows 188 members, and their names include many well-known men of letters, Professors of Literature, Editors, Journalists, and others interested in the history and present condition of the language. Nineteen members sent donations (above 10s. 6d.) which together amounted to about £40; and thirty-two sent subscriptions of ten shillings for the supply of one year's publications.

To these subscribers (whose names are printed in the list below) all the four Tracts for this year have been sent: and it will appear that since they might have bought the four Tracts for 7s. 6d., they have made a donation of 2s. 6d. apiece to the funds of the Society. This margin is very useful and we hope that they will renew their 10s. subscription in advance for the ensuing year. That will ensure their receiving the Society's papers as they are issued, and it will much assist the machinery of publication. Also Members who have not hitherto subscribed are now specially invited to do so. They can judge of the Society's work, and can best support it in this way. The publications of 1921 will be sent as soon as issued to all such subscribers.

Subscriptions may be sent to the Secretary, L. Pearsall Smith, 11 St. Leonard's Terrace, Chelsea, London, S.W., to whom all communications should be addressed, or they may be paid direct to 'Treasurer of S.P.E.', Barclay's Bank, High Street, Oxford.

LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS

* Donors of above 10s. 6d.

† Subscribers for 1921.

‡ Universities, Colleges, or Libraries to which the issues of 1921 will be sent without prepayment.

The secretary should be informed of any error in the above addresses, and of any permanent change of address.

FINIS