New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1881-09-28


tho word ''some'' sounds strange-viz.,
a. an adverb. An American will say,
Il think some of buying new house,"
or the like, for II have some idea OF
buying. etc. ! have, indeed heard the
usage defended as perfectly correct,
though assuredly there is not an in
stance In all the wide range of English
literature which will justify it. -.
So, also, many Americans defend 40
good English the use Of the word
"good'' in such phrases as the follow
ing: II have written that note good"
for ''well;' '.that will make you feel
good'' for ''that will do you good, and
in other ways, all equally incorrect.
OF course, there are instances in which
adjectives are allowed by custom to be
used as verbs. as for instance, 4 fright
for rightly" etc., but there can be no
reason for substituting the adjective
good In place Of tho adverb s.'well,'
which is as short word and at least
equally euphonious. The use Of ''real''
for '''really," as ''real angry" ..real
nicess IL, Of course grammatically In
defensible. ..s
The use of the word elegant for
.'fine'' strikes English ears as strange.
For instance, If you say to an Ameri-
can, s'This is q fine morning." he is
likely to reply, lit is an elegant morn.
ing" or perhaps oftener by using simp-
" the word Elegant" It is not a
pleasing use of the word. s''@
There are some Americanisms which
seem more than defensible-in fact,
dramatically more correct than our
English usage. Thus, we seldom hear
in America the redundant word 'got''
In such expressions as II have got, y
etc., etc. Where the word would not b
redundant, it is yet generally replaced
by the more euphonious word ':gotten, :.
now scarcely ever heard in England.
Yet, again, we often hear in America,
such expressions as II shall get me q
new book" II have gotten me dress. !"
This use Of ''me' for myself is good
old English, at any rate 4.
have been struck by the circum-
stance that neither the conventional,
but generally very. absurd, American Of
our English novelists, nor the oonven.
tional, but IT. least equally absurd, En-.
glishman Of American novelists, is
made to employ the more delicate
Americanisms or Anglicisms. We gen.
orally find the American guessing" OF
calculating" if not even come coarsely
Yankee, like Reade's Joshua Fullalove,
while the Englishman of American
novels Is almost always very coarsely.
British. even if heis not represented a.
using what Americans persist in re-
garding as the true s'.Henglish hac-
cent" Where an American is less
coarsely drawn, a. Tronope's "Ameri'
can Senator" he uses expressions
which no American ever uses, and none
Of those Americanisms which, while
more delicate, are in reality more char
| scteristic, because they are common,
all Americans using them; And in like
manner, when an American writer in
PRODUCES an Englishman. of the more
| natural sort he never makes him speal
IS an Englishman would speak; be
fore half dozen sentences have beer
uttered he uses some expression which
is purely American Thus no English
man ever uses and no American maI
be recognized at once by using suct
expressions as II know it, or ''That's
60" for 1T is true" BY saying why
certainly" for certainly, ~ and *
forth. There are q great number o
these slight but characteristic peculiar
tiles Of American and English Eng
ush.-Genhenaa.s's Magazine.