Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1891-12-03
HABITS OF WRITER'S.

Come Specimens of New England, West
ern and other ProvinciaIisms.
It matters not a brass farthing or a
red cent (Which you wilD whether one
says grade or gradient" "shunt'
or switch" ''tinned" OF ''canned"
lobster American use prefers one term.
English the other, and that is all.
Railroad" is at most trifie old fash
ioned here aud perfectly admissible.
We should write it ourselves without
hesitation when it fitted the sentence
better than railway" When we come
to words of the general vocabulary
such as 'cIever," 'guess," reckon"
some of them are New England or
western provincialisIns in their own
country just as "canny" is or lately
was northern provincialism in Great
Britain. They may be adopted on
either side as part of the general stock.
It is conceivable that word might be
freely used by British writers without
any sense of local color before it had
ceased to be provincial in America.
We cannot admit, however, that the
question of Americanism is concluded
showing authority for the word or
phrase in English documents of the
Seventeenth century or earlier. What
ever we consciously import from Amer
lea in our own time is not the less an
American import here and now because
it was English long ago. Nor are we
the less entitled to import and use it,
If we find it good, because it is really
Of American growth. When old au-
thority can be produced we are able to
answer the historical and grammatical
puriSts after their own manner, which
oftentimes is convenient. As facts in
the history of the language these things
are always interesting; as guides to
what our language ought to be we can
not, for our part, attach any great i'm
portance to them. AS Nineteenth cen
tury coinage may be good, so Seven
teenth century coinage may be bad.
Both should prevail or be rejected on
their merits, except where usage has
already settled the word in its right of
citizenship.
Mr.. Brander Matthews carries the
wars into our coasts and attacks "Brit-
icisms" of Britain. He says that Mr..
Bagehot used like" and Sir Charles
Dixie uses without" as a conjunction.
Very well. to that extent Mr.. Bagehot
and Sir Charles Dixie stand convicted
of bad English. But we must wholly
decline to be held answerable for them
or to accept either of them as repre-
senting the standard or even the aver
age of English as written in England.
Many able men and some great men,
even some great men of letters, have
been careless writers.
Again, it may be British habit to
say, Very pleased" 1t is not the
habit of careful writer's or good speak
ers. AT one point we think Mr. Brand
er Matthews makes definite mistake.
He treats the uses of ministers"
meaning the ministers in Office for the
time being, as a growing neologism.
Unless our memory greatly deceives us
it was the common form of the last
century, and 1.-THE ministry" ''the gov
ernment" are innovations by compari-
son. We did not know that revival of
ministers" was on the increase. When
we have used it ourselves it has been
with a pleasurable feeling of slight
aychaism. But if Mr.. Brander Mat
thews has observed that it is coming
into fashion again he is very likely to
ha riuht Eor rur otu,, no VI xrya obo,,1J |
welcome it.-London Saturday Review.