Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-10-27
OUR HABITS OF SPEECH
Points of Difference Between This Country
and England.
Some PecuIiaritIes of Our Own MAX
ing shown in GOod-Na-
turcd Comparison.


thing. 10y reason OF the pleasure OF telling
their own minor customs. of which many
men and women are sensible and which
they may enjoy whenever they find some
one willing 10 listen-and he is willing to
listen who is permitted to return like
description OF his own lesser habits. But
between nations there Is Impotence and
even Indignation. whereas Americans and
English might do something better than
quarrel or play. for they might mend GER
tain things that nave gone astray between
them. and that might with some reciprocal
gain Dee settled midway.
For instance. a letter needs no postrnark
when it bears this sign Of its origin. Il
should like to have you come" 1t is Il
phrase no one uses in England but it Is
also phrase that one small word would
chang" into pure English Of a good time
To have you come Is more modern than
We can endure; Yet Il would have you to
come seems to be somewhat more an
cient than We have courage for Why do
We fear it? The phrase has a healthy
sound, is home!y. and yet may be made
cercnonlous with all ornamental measures
OF ADDRESS by means of the context, But
Il should like To- have YOU come" with all
It's faults. is surely better than the most
uncouth Of phrases. which is current Eng
Hsh use. as that is current Amerfcan-"I
should like you to come" While We refuse
the ATucrtcautsm, can We ask the Ameri-
cans 20 take INTO use our AngliCiSm? 1t is
something to their credit that they never
either speak or write it, for 1t y sinEIlarIv
1ne!egInt. only less so than Il want YOU
10 come, which We all say. though we
may not write it. but which in America or
al least in New England. they hardly mend
by Il want you should come"
Again. the same nOte of few lines that
Is so American with its have you come"
Is equally un-Engli<h in the phrase. Write
NE Il must be owned that this sounds i'll
to us talhcit l am -old it has become usual
here also in letters of affairs: but it seems
To Ire Inc invariabie form on the other side
OF the ocean. There is aSsuredly nothing
wrong with it except novelty. We make no
"lIntai'E OF Write me a letter. and vet
w rle me by return post We cannot
5H""- why not2 Ne in our nonotonous
h'h&uaSe Is as good Il dative as it is an
6ccuSajiVe. 50 that grammar is not 0utrag-
co. ana this obviously We acknowledge by
our rite me letter" Sing me a
song. and Give me q book
American SrrupIes
In an article on this ever interesting topic
Mi William Archer has said that 1.-The
Americans do not make a principle Of fol-
lowing the Latin emphasis. else they wound
say '"Ta'or-y, and 50 forth But as a
Iavt they nearly do say il. They make a
hILH '1 c0mpromise. To hear them say
or4t'rE you would suppose that in the
turtheT inland parts Of their own c0untrv
IHey would say Oratnry with a quite long .
but that they have been somewhat disc0ur-
aged by he English practice They nearly
t4@dilZ" the $yiidHl-S. as though they were
speaking French. Nor do they eyer a rhf.va
the expert En-Iish way Of hurrving a svl-
l1'1e without dropping it altogether. which
dlaAe< 1,Irtttory kind Of test OF English
accent hen they say library they seem
10 = remembering the preCepts of their
tya1her~ iT childhood. who had warned
IheTn 10 divide the two RS Enthusiastically.
e. also divide the TWO rs, but not with So
distinct an interval Altogether an Ameri-
can seems 10 speak with more direct refer
B tA'e 10 his SchOOlmaster than We burden
ourselves Wtthal. He IS apt 10 tell YOU how
carefully he trained - T.i,r
Hunt with rhyme 70 say for the Chris
tIaH name. Nor does he change that fash
lon when he learns that Leigh Hunt and
sound.
On the whole, he pronounces with much
more purpose and WEAKNESS. and with more
consciousness Of education. than does the
E1glishndu. He has more sCrIples He
never writes round Ghe adverb) without
an ap7~tr7Phe to signify the merely colo
quail cropping Of the a. And this word he
uses very often. because for some unknown
reason although Biblical English is always
at hand. and at least as familiar in the
United States as with us) about seems to
ne quite out OF Use An American may say
that he viii talk 10 you about a book -
hui he Will never say that ne is going
about he always says going around or
farniliarly. round He thinks us very
B sioEenly for OIIr way Of dropping the in
white and ne prOnOunces il carefully
transposing It 50 that il begins the word.
He sounds the in hotel" which to US
seems i'll, because ii Is not French. And
generally he tets you understand that what
he dos i not done by chance.
He says address with consciousness
that somehow the word SO pronounced re-
OURS more care in a sentence than il does
when spoken in the English manner de
rived from the FRENCH with the accent on
usual educated way in America is proved
not only by speech, but by meter, for
have Just found the word with that stress
IN American verse.
Things. tn Give
Why. one may wonder in vain. have the
United States given UP the use of 'branch?'
Scripture and all the poets and all English
literature have made the word as familiar
there as it is here. Why, then. are We al
ways leased, in print and in speech alike
with limb IN place Of it? IL America
Will promise to take branch back into
use. and If she will give up the ugly word
dirt in place OF earth" as a gardening
term. England on her part will do some
thing 10 please her. or two things The
offer is a fair one. Which are they to be ?
II - only too evident that any American
Is ready 70 name two things that offend
nun III the talk of English people, and Of
1cnd him not without good reason. | would
not offer such a paltry concession as the
abandonment Of different TO- for this. al
though Americans are still complaining of
1t in our speech, We have long ago explicit
~ FenounceG- II is now many years since
prOfessed our national repentance. and
though some Of US may say it. in that state
>,
none of US who have any responsibility
will ever write IL again. We know IL is
modern and Of IA bad time. We remember
how i'll il looks where 1t stands in the
Queen Anne English Of Thackeray's "Es-
mond-' Let them ask us for something
better.
lnadyertent We certainly are more than
any other European nation. and much more
than America. 1t is by no means OF their own
habit "T observation that we become aware
~ the prevalence Of certain habits of
speech among Americans For instance a
novelist. VIII" Is one of the most vigilant
OF writer's and Of men. mimics the speech
Of an Englishwoman by printing her ma n
ner of pronJuncing "styoupid' Few En-
gliSh hearers detect the fact that all Amer
leans Of whatever part of the continent
call their chief city moo York" Not that
they make the double long or conspicu-
Gus The word is spoken quite quickly
and makes an iaTnbic foot, whereas we
generally take II a spondee. But the
absence Of the English slight preliminary
sound seems to be tnyaria bic in America
That sound IS however. a little refinement
which We shall take leave to keep
American indignation. even when il is de-
served, is easier to meet than an adnira-
I'n thaJ Is altogether unmeritad An
m hyy ba 4