The Van Buren press., 1898-01-08
COLLOQUlALlSMS.
Americans Not Guilty of the Charge
of Corrupting the Language.


Are we Americans "eorrupting" the
English undefled of London? Not long
ago l heard an Englishman state that
over here they quite often say pants"
for "trousers." | told him he was
wrong, and that the word was only ap-
piled to articles of underwear. Still, |
would have been just as decided on the
subject of vest" for "waist-coat' And
yet only recently received from
London tailor bill on which the word
west" was distinctly written. In real
ity "wastcoat" is an incorrect word as
used here, since the garment is not
coat for the waist at all, and does not
in the faintest degree resemble one.
The English are intensely fond of the
word lovely" They use it on all oe-
casions; the habit seems even to be
growing upon them; they tell you OF a
lovely sunset, lovely horse, lovely
game of golf, a lovely cross-eoun-
try ride, a lovely nosegay, Their
"quite So always diverts me; as rule
it is so entertainingly incorrect. An
American will say, for example: Il had
just got into town, had not been able
to dine on the train and | was almost
ready to snatch their bags of provender
from the noses of the cab horses at the
station" "Quite So" smiles the Eng
| lishman. You say: "Imagine my dis
pleasure, my disgust at such an occur
renee "Quite So" you are sympa-
thetically answered. ''Cravat" is a
word you seldom meet with in Eng
land; it is invariably "tie," word
which has slight authority to exist at
all in the shape of a noun, and one
which we almost solely use in connee-
tion with matters of sport. Fancy" is
a charming popular English phrase;
you love to hear it from the lips of a
pretty woman, though you hear it from
all sorts of lips. 1t is the equivalent Of
our Gust thinlx!" and is much more
graceful. OF course, this question Of
international verbalism is an endless
one.
Our hideous 81 guess" you never hear.
But 81 expect" is often used wrongly,
as 81 expect you didn't enjoy yourself
Yesterday" etc. "Sick," of course, is
hardly understood here as anything
but "nauseated," though it is a good old
Shaispearean word and one of much
solder claim than Gill" Our drug
store" is unknown to British ear or eye,
Both prefer "chemist" and with far
better taste. Still, why they have aban-
loned "apothecary" l cannot seeH Is II
not, after all, an apter word than
Chemist" in this sense? We speak OF
the great Faraday as "a chemist
There is an american shoe store,
rather flauntingly set forth as such, in
Regent street, but this is obviously in
tended to attract the tourist. store
for "shop" is as much discountenanced
as elevator" for Gift" The American
habit of calling a magazine of com
merce a "store" cannot be defended
but elevator" is a much more sensible
term than Gift" which is almost
classible under the head of slang. II
you asked an Englshman which depot
would be the best wherefrom to take
the train for Brighton, you would rur
the risk of not being understood. Why
we call a railway station a depot" Is
hard to explain. 1t is not taken from
the French, in this connection, since
"gare" is invariably employed through
out France, and depot has no sucl
definition. And so the colloquial vo
cabulary of our English and of Eng
lands English has twisted itself wrong
or kept itself right in either country
Altogether, about an equal number O.
faults and inaccuracies exist on either
side The instant we feel ourselves en-
titled to blame them, they can seiz'
upon logical pretext for blaming us
They speak the language far more
musically and engagingly than we do
but we both speak it with about th,
same random disregard. Colllert
Weekly.