New-York tribune., 1901-10-19

American branch OF the English speaking race
10 contribute its share TO the development Of
the language and the establishment Of its ideals.
AS many strains were mingled in England 20
make the Engishman and determine the quality
Of his speech. So here in America. many have
mingled TO make the American and determine
the quality OF his speech. They have esta blshed
race characteristics in which Professor Mat
thews sees much that is comparable with those
Of the Elizabethan English, far removed from
the stolidity the "'nsula-ity and inarticulate-
ness that nineteenth century English critics
have found TO be characteristic Of their own
tion The Americans interest in the language
is deep and as wide that Of their English
cousins. and they must awake 10 their respons-
blity: the dominant influence in deciding its
future must come from this side Of the ocean,
keeping il fresh and vigorous with this Eliza
bethan influence. resisting pedantic attempts to
cramp fits healthy growth and urging along the
simplifcation of its orthOgrap ply Professor
Matthews is a spelling refOrmer himself in
limited way. and practises what he breaches in
his book. He is at the pains TO defend the
American spelling at considerable length. going
over the old familiar ground again of the false
etymologizing and Inconsistency that have made
standard English spelling what il is. 1t is not
for lack of argument and showing Of the facts
has been fixed. with the slight differences be-
tween usage here and in England still perssting.
Perhaps il is true. az the essayist thinks. that
the reformers have asked too much. and so have
received too little; and that the English speak
ing peoples. being unfangy opportunist. abhor
radical remedies and are wont TO remove
ancient abuses piecemeal.
Professor Matthews goes over more we'll trod-
den ground i'm his essays Americanisms and
on the function Of slang, but he does not add
much that is new 10 these well worn discussions.
though he has contributed few new examples.
He plants himself with the most radical in the
matter of disputed usage and has no words too
severe for the purist and the makers of rules.
The subjunctive mood in English is dying out. IS
"a barnacle' and must be cleansed away; such
locutions as he DON'T" the house is being
built" he was given" something. the split in
fnitive, the OF unnecessary who
which" after an and or a but he defends.
Professor Matthews himself would not take ad-
vantage Of all these licenses, il is pleasing to
learn: but he IS arguing in general for greater
freedom in English.
1t must not be too squeamish too par
ticular, since excessive refinement goes only with
muscular weakness. II must be allowed 10
venture solecisms, neologisms. AmeTi-
canisms, on criticisms. on Australianisms, If
need be, however ugly some OF these may seem.
for the language uses itself up fast, and has 10
be replenished, that it shall not lose its vgor
and its ardOr
1t is not gospel that stands in any great
need Of preaching. Professor Matthew's essays
embodying il, well one or two others on
rhyme (of course. he spells il ''rime') ana The
Poetry Of Place Names" while they may occa-
sionally give his more timorous readers a slight
shock at his determination 10 oppose all those
in authority, are somewhat inconsequential. The
point Of view is that of a rather rambling and
dlettante scholarship.