The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1899-10-27
AMERIcANIsMs DISCUSSED.
English View Of Some of the Dread
full Things We Say.
From the Pan Mall Gazette.

ing their own minor customs, Of which
many men and women are sensible. and
which they may enjoy whenever they find
some one wiling 10 iisten-aud he = will
ing TO listen who is peruitted TO return
like description OF his own lesser habits.
But between nations there Is Impotence
and even Indignation; whereas Americans
and English might do some hing better
than quarrel or pay. for they might mend
certain things that have gone astray be
tween them, and that might with some
reciprocal gain be settled midway
For instance. a letter needs no post
mark when II bears this sign of its origin,
Il should like to have you come" Ii Is
phrase no one uses in England. but it Is
also phrase that one small word would
change into pure English of a good time
To have you come is more modern than
we can endure: yet, q would have you TO
come" seems to be somewhat more ancient
than we have courage for. Why do we
fear il? The phrase has healthy sound,
is homely and yet may be made ceremo-
Nous with all ornamental measures of
address by means OF the context. But y
should like to have you come with al
its faults, IS surrey better than the most
uncouth Of phrases which is current Eng
l,sh use, as that j. current American-'1
should like you to corr" White we re-
fuse the Americanism, can we ask the
Americans to take into use our Anglicism2
IL is something 10 their credit that they
never either speak or write it, for 1t is
singularly inelegant; only less 50 than
Il want you to come" which we oil say,
though we may not write il. but which in
America. or at least in New England. they
hardly mend by Il want you should
come"
Again. the same note Of a few lines that
is so American with its have you come"
IS equally I'M Englsh in the phrase, Write
me-" 1t must be owned that this sounds
III to us (albeit I am told it has become
usual here also in letters Of aff1irs); but II
seems TO be the invariable form on the
other side Of the ocean. There is assured
ly nothing wrong with il except novelty.
We make no difficulty of Write me let
ter and Yet Write me by return Of pos"
we cannot abide. Why not? Me" in our
mOnotonous language is as good a dative
as il Is an accusauve so that grammar is
not outraged; and this obviously We ac-
knowledge by our Write me a letter.
Sing me song" and Give me book"
In an article on this ever interesting topic
Mr.. William Archer has said that "the
Americans do not make a principle OF fol-
lowing the Latin emphasis, else they would
say 'oratory' and so forth. Bur as a
fact they nearly do say it. They make a
kind of compromise To hear them say
"Oratory" you would suppose that in the
further inland parts of their own coun-
try they would say oratory with quite
long o; but that they have bsen somewhat
discouraged by the English practice. They
nearly equalize the syla5les, as though
they were speaking French. Nor do they
ever achieve the expert English way of
hurryihg a syllable without dropping 1t al
together which makes "ora tory a kind
of test of English accent, When they say
library they seem TO be remembering
the precepts of their teachers in childhood,
who had warned them to divide the two
RS Enthusiastically. We also divide The two
RS, but not with so distinct an interval
Altogether, an American seems TO speak
with more direct reference TO his school
master than We burden ourselves withal.
He is apt to tell you how carefully he was
trained to pronounce Leigh Hunt with a
rhyme to Say" for the Christian name.
Nor does he change that fashion when he
learns that Leigh Hunt and his country
men used a different vowel-sound.
on the whole, he pronounces with much
more purpose and WEAKNESS, and with
much more consciousness of education,
than does the Englishman. He has more
| scruples. He never writes round (the adj
| verb without an apostrophe to signify the
merely colloquial dropping of the "a. "
| And this word he uses very often because
| for some unknown reason although Bib
! heal English is always at hand. and at
| least as familiar in the United States as
| with us) about" seems to be quite out of
| use. An American may say that he will
| talk to you ''about a book but he Will
never say that he is "going about" he al
ways says going around" or familiar'y
"'Tound." He thinks US very siovenly
for our way of dropping the N in
white" and he pronOunces it carefully,
| transposng it so that it begins the word.
| He sounds the III in "hotel," which 10
az fus aah And
| generally he lets you understand that
| what he does is not done by chance.
He says address" with consciousness
that somehow the word so pronounced re-
quires more care in a sentence than it does
when spoken in the English manner, (de-
| rived from the FRENCH, with the accent
on the second syllable. That address IS
the usual educated way in America i;
proved not only by speech but by meter
for 1 have just found the word with that
stress in American verse.
Why. one may wonder in vain, have The
United States given up the use o
"branch?" Scripture and all the poets ant
all English literature have made the wore
as familiar there as it is here. Why, then
are we always teased, in print and speecr
alike with limb" in place of II? 1
America will promise 10 take branch
back into use. and if she will give up the
ugly word dirt" in place of earth a:
a gardening term, England on her par
will do something to please her. or TIVE
things. The offer is q fair one. Which are
they to be? 1t is only 100 evident thai
any American is ready to name tw'
things that offend him in the talk Of Eng
fish people. and offend him not without
good reason. l would not offer such
paltry concession as the abandonment o
different TO-" For this, although Amer
leans are still complaining of il in ou
speech, we have long ago explicitly re
nounced 1t is now many years since We
professed our national repentance, au(
though some of us may say it, in tina
state Of inadvertence to which we arr
too liable, none of US who have any re
sponsib ility win ever write It again. w
know il is modern and of a bad time. W.
remember how i'll 1t looks where ii stand:
In the Queen Anne English of Thacke
RAYS "Esmond." Let them ask us fo
something better.
Inadvertent we certainly are, more thar
any other European nation, and muci
more than America. 1t is by means O
their own habit of observation that we be