Daily Yellowstone journal., 1891-11-12
bit OF
Some Specimens Of New England. West
ern and Other PrOvincialismS

Some Specimens Of New England. West
ern and Other ProvincialismS
It matters not a brass farthing or a
red cent (Which you viii whether one
saws grade" or gradient" ''shunt''
or switch" ''tinned" or canned"
lobster. American use prefers one term.
English the other, and that is all.
Railroad" is at most a triie old fash
toned here and perfectly admissible.
We should write it ourselves without
hesitation when il fitted the sentence
better than railway" When we come
TO words Of the general vocabulary
such as ''clever," guess" reckon"
some of them are New England OF
western provincialisms in their
country, just as ''canny' is or lately
was a northern provincialism in Great
Britain They may be adopted on
either side as part of the general stock.
IL is conceivable that a 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 toe
question Of A-mericanisIn is concluded
showing authority for the word OF
phrase in English documents of the
Seventeenth century or earlier. What
ever we consciously import from Amer
lea i'm our own time is not the less an
Americanimpor here and now because
it was English long ago Nor are we
the less entitled to imT lrt and use &c.
If we find it, good. bee use it is really
Of American growth. When old au-
thority can be produce ! we are able 10
answer the historical nd grammatical
purists after their oy manner. which
Oftentimes IS eut As facts in
the history 81 the lai uage these things
are always interes lg; as guides TO
what our language ught 20 be we can
not, for our part, ttach any great i'm
portance TO them. As Nineteenth cen
tury coinage ms. be good. SO Seven
teenth century coinage may be bad.
Both should prevail OF be rejected on
their merits, except where usage has
already settled the word in its right OF
citizenship.
Mr.. Brander Matthews carries the
war; 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 70 be held answerabie for them
or to accept either of them as repre-
senting the standard or even the aver
W of English as written in England.
Many able men and some great men.
ven some great men Of letters, have
been careless writers.
Again, it may be a British habit 10
say, Very pleased 1t is not the
habit of careful writers or good speak
ers. At one point we think Mr.. Brand
er Matthews makes a definite mistake.
He treats the uses Of Minister
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 the ministry, " ''the gov
eminent are innovations by cOmpari-
son. We did not know that revival Of
ministers was on the incraas-. When
we have used IL ourselves IL has been
Nth a pleasurable feeling Of slight
arehaism. But II Mr.. Brander Mat
thews has observed that it is coming
into fashion again he is very likely TO
be right. For ~ own part we should
welcome it-London Saturday Review.