The Savannah morning news., 1901-09-01
THE KINGS ENGLISH.
SPIRITED PROTEST AGAINST ANY
ATTEMPT TO REFORM AMERI-
CAN USE OF 1T.


1t Is Murdered in England to n
Greater Extent Than in the United
states-We Declined Their stamp
on Our Paper in 177G as We Now
Decline 1t on Our Language-A
Strong Argument.
If there were any truth in the rumor
that certain academic bodies abroad
are about to form an association for
the purpose of protecting the English
language from the encroachment of
the American there would be some rea-
son for counter-stroke, on this side
of the old mother-tongue from the slip
shod treatment it receives at the lips
of modern society in England.
1t is quite apparent to any observer
that a great deal of the dignity of the
language is at present sacrificed to the
haste and waste and within of the world
of Mayfair fashion. According to this
whim one is no longer correct If taking
the time to say necessary" for in
stance; one must say 'nessary,' or an
approximate sound to that. Nothing
is Ordinary now; but all things are
''ordinry," which to unaccustomed ears
quite equals the "ornery" of dialect. No
more may we say literary" but "litry"
is the rule. There are no secretaries
now; all are "secretrys." There are no
more cemeteries" either; they are
"cemetrys;" and so on through long
list of hostilities to the letter "a" in
which the outrage against elegance is
as bad as the clipping of final "gs, or
being customary only with the unlet-
tered American, but the constant prac-
tice of the aristocratic English.
AS for what are called Americanisms,
Richard Grant White showed long ago,
and very convincingly, that most OF
them are Anglicisms, and as ola as
Shakespeare. And as for what is nam
ed American slang, a large part of the
slang prevalent comes from England,
and only that is American which is
witty and full of point, and usually an
affair neither of bad grammar nor bad
pronunciation.
Generations ago this English habit
corrupted the pronunciation OF the
proper names of the families OF Great
Britain. But with that we nave no
quarrel. since if they wish to make
Beever of Belvoir, Beechem of Beau
champ. or Luson-gore of Levison Cow
er. they have the right to do so, and
we will not make 1t any concern OF
ours, But in the main body or the
language we have a proprietary inter-
est rivaling theirs, as the heritage OF
the whole race, and while their foun-
tains of learning may have full right
to improve and to protect 1t. In gen
eral practice they have no right to in
iure and degrade il and then add in
suit to the injury by accusing us Of
having done so.
That Americans know how to use the
language with propriety, and do so,
might be surmised from the fact that
one American writer has his place In
Westminster Abbey, the British Val
halla: that others have been invited
to write English epitaphs; that our
best writers of the day rank with the
best of England's day. No English
writer has ever excelled the exquisite
delicacy of Hawthorne's choice of Eng
lish. the perfection of Emerson's, the
crystal purity of Prescott's style, the
charm Of Irvings. the majesty of Bry-
ants, to name no others of those whose
works are as widely read in England
as in the United States.
1t has remained for American publish
ers to discover and collect the work of
English writer's neglected al home, such
as De Quincey's, for instance. Shakes
peare has had no better commentators
and editors than America has given.
And, although the language being ours
by common descent. we have as much
right as the English people to corrupt
II if we choose, yet we do not choose.
The English have never conquered
the habit Of looking at us as colonial;
nor have they tried to conquer It. We
have refused to remain colonists; but
in some respects they have never rec
ognized our refusal. Except among the