limn, _lost in_ limb.
* * * * *
THE SKILFUL LEECH
The Poet Laureate has pointed out that several useful words have been
lost to the English language because their identity in sound with
other words renders it impossible to use them without the risk either
of being misunderstood or of calling up undesirable associations.
It is owing to this cause that English--or, at least, the English of
Great Britain--has no word that can correctly be used as a general
designation for a member of the healing profession. In America, I
believe, the word is 'physician'; but in England that appellation
belongs to one branch of the profession exclusively. The most usual
term here is 'doctor'; but the M.D. rightly objects to the application
of this title to his professional brother who has no degree; and
in a university town to say that John Smith is a doctor would be
inconveniently ambiguous. 'Medical man' is cumbrous, and has the
further disadvantage (in these days) of not being of common gender.
Now the lack of any proper word for a meaning so constantly needing
to be expressed is certainly a serious defect in modern (insular)
English. The Americans have some right to crow over us here; but their
'physician' is a long word; and though it has been good English in
the sense of _medicus_ for six hundred years, it ought by etymology
to mean what _physicien_ does in French, and _physicist_ in modern
English. Our ancestors were better off in this respect than either we
or the Americans. The only native word to denote a practiser of the
healing art is _leech_, which is better than the foreign 'physician'
because it is shorter. It was once a term of high dignity: Chaucer
could apply it figuratively to God, as the healer of souls; and even
in the sixteenth century a poet could address his lady as 'My sorowes
leech'. Why can we not so use it now? Why do we not speak of 'The
Royal College of Leeches'? Obviously, because a word of the same form
happens to be the name of an ugly little animal of disgusting habits.
If I were to introduce my medical attendant to a friend with the
words 'This is my leech', the gentleman (or lady) so presented would
think I was indulging in the same sort of pleasantry as is used when
a coachman is called a 'whip'; and he (or she) would probably not
consider the joke to be in the best of taste. Of course all educated
people know that it was once not unusual to speak of a man of medicine
as a 'leech'; but probably there are many who imagine that this
designation was a disparaging allusion to the man's tool of trade, and
that it could be applied only to inferior members of the profession.
The ancient appellation of the healer is so far obsolete that if I
were to answer a question as to a man's profession with the words 'Oh,
he is a leech', there would be some risk of being misunderstood to
mean that he was a money-lender.
Etymologists generally have regarded the name of the bloodsucking
animal as the same word with _leech_ a physician, the assumption being
that the animal received its name from its use as a remedial agent.
But the early forms, both in English and Low German, show that the
words are originally unconnected. The English for _medicus_ was in
the tenth century _l['æ]ce_ or _léce_, and in the thirteenth century
_leche_; the word for _sanguisuga_ was in the tenth century _lyce_,
and in the thirteenth century _liche_. According to phonetic law the
latter word should have become _litch_ in modern English; but it very
early underwent a punning alteration which made it homophonous with
the ancient word for physician. The unfortunate consequence is that
the English language has hopelessly lost a valuable word, for which it
has never been able to find a satisfactory substitute.
H.B.
DIFFERENTIATION OF HOMOPHONES
On this very difficult question the attitude of a careful English
speaker is shown in the following extract from a letter addressed to
us:
METAL, METTLE: AND PRINCIPAL, PRINCIPLE
'I find that I do not _naturally_ distinguish _metal_ and _mettle_
in pronunciation, tho' when there is any danger of ambiguity I say
_metal_ for the former and _met'l_ for the latter; and I should
probably do so (without thinking about it) in a public speech. In my
young days the people about me usually pronounced _met'l_ for both.
Theoretically I think the distinction is a desirable one to make;
the fact that the words are etymologically identical seems to me
irrelevant. The words are distinctly two in modern use: when we talk
of _mettle_ (meaning spiritedness) there is in our mind no thought
whatever of the etymological sense of the word, and the recollection
of it, if it occurred, would only be disturbing. So I intend in future
to pronounce metal as _met[e]l_ (when I don't forget). And I am not
sure that _met[e]l_ is, strictly speaking, a "spelling-pronunciation":
It is possible that the difference in spelling originated in a
difference of pronunciation, not the other way about. For _metal_ in
its literal sense was originally a scientific word, and in that sense
may have been pronounced carefully by people who would pronounce
it carelessly when they used it in a colloquial transferred sense
approaching to slang.
'The question of _principal_ and _principle_ is different. When I was
young, educated people in my circle always, I believe, distinguished
them; so to this day when I hear principal pronounced as principle it
gives me a squirm, tho' I am afraid nearly everybody does it now. That
the words are etymologically distinct does not greatly matter; it is
of more importance that I have sometimes been puzzled to know which
word a speaker meant; if I remember right, I once had to ask.
'It would be worth while to distinguish _flower_ and _flour_ (which
originally, like _metal_ and _mettle_, were the same word); yet in
practice it is not easy to make the difference audible. The homophony
is sometimes inconvenient.'
CORRECTION TO TRACT II
On p. 37 of TRACT II the words 'the Anglo-prussian society which Mr.
Jones represents' have given offence and appear to be inaccurate. The
German title of the series in which Jones's Dictionary is one has the
following arrangement of words facing the English title:
HERAUSGEGEBEN
UND
DER "ASSOCIATION PHONÉTIQUE INTERNATIONALE" GEWIDMET
VON
H. MICHAELIS,
and this misled me. I am assured that, though the dictionary may
be rightly described as Anglo-Prussian, the Phonetic Association is
Gallo-Scandinavian. In behalf of the S.P.E. I apologize to the A.
Ph. I. for my mistake which has led one of its eminent associates to
accuse me of bearing illwill towards the Germans. The logic of that
reproach baffles me utterly.
[R.B.]
* * * * *
SOME LEXICAL MATTERS
FAST = QUICK OR FIRM
'An Old Cricketer' writes:
'After reading your remarks on the ambiguity of the word _fast_ (Tract
III, p. 12) I read in the report of a Lancashire cricket match that
_Makepeace was the only batsman who was fast-footed_. But for the
context and my knowledge of the game I should have concluded that
Makepeace kept his feet immovably on the crease; but the very opposite
was intended. At school we used to translate [Greek: podas
ôkus Achilleus] "swift-footed Achilles", and I took that to mean that
Achilles was a sprinter. I suppose _quick-footed_ would be the epithet
for Makepeace.'
SPRINTER is a good word, though _Sprinting Achilles_ could not be
recommended.
BRATTLE
A correspondent from Newcastle writes advocating the recognition
of the word _brattle_ as descriptive of thunder. It is a good old
echo-word used by Dunbar and Douglas and Burns and by modern English
writers. It is familiar through the first stanza of Burns's poem 'To a
Mouse'.
Wee sleekit cow'rin tim'rous beastie,
O what a panic's in thy breastie.
Thou need na start awa sae hasty
Wi' bickering brattle....
which is not suggestive of thunder. The _N.E.D._ explains this as 'to
run with brattling feet, to scamper'.
In Burns's 'A Winter Night', it is the noisy confusion of _biting
Boreas_ in the bare trees and bushes:
I thought me on the ourie cattle
Or silly sheep, wha bide this brattle
O' winter war.
It is possible that _brattle_ has fallen into disuse through too
indiscriminate application. After Burns's famous poem the word can
establish itself only in the sense of a scurrying dry noise: it is too
small for thunder.
We would call attention to the principle involved in this judgement,
for it is one of the main objects of our society to assist and guide
Englishmen in the use of their language by fully exposing the facts
that should determine their practice. Every word has its history,
and no word can prosper in the speech or writing of those who do not
respect its inherited and unalterable associations; these cannot be
got rid of by ignoring them. Littré in the preface to his dictionary
claims for it this pre-eminent quality of usefulness, that it will
enable his countrymen to speak and write good French by acquainting
them with historic tradition, and he says that it was enthusiasm for
this one purpose that sustained him in his great work. Its object was
to harmonize the present use of the language with the past usage, in
order that the present usage may possess all the fullness, richness,
and certitude which it can have, and which naturally belong to it. His
words are: 'Avant tout, et pour ramener à une idée mère ce qui va être
expliqué dans la _Préface_, je dirai, définissant ce dictionnaire,
qu'il embrasse et combine l'usage présent de la langue et son usage
passé, afin de donner à l'usage présent toute la plénitude et la
sûreté qu'il comporte.'
It is the intention of our society to offer only expert and
well-considered opinion on these literary matters, which are often
popularly handled in the newspapers and journals as fit subjects
for private taste and uninformed prejudice: and since the Oxford
Dictionary has done more fully for English what Littré did for French,
our task is comparatively easy. But experts cannot be expected, all of
them, to have the self-denying zeal of Émile Littré, and the worth of
our tracts will probably improve with the increase of our subscribers.
BICKER
As Burns happens to use _bickering_ as his epithet for the mouse's
brattle, we may take this word as another illustration of Littré's
principle. The _N.E.D._ gives the original meaning as _skirmish_, and
quotes Shakespeare,
If I longer stay
We shall begin our ancient bickerings,
which a man transposing the third and fourth words might say to-day
without rising above colloquial speech; but there is another allied
signification which Milton has in
Smoak and bickering flame;
and this is followed by many later writers. It would seem therefore,
if the word is to have a special sense, that it must be focused in the
idea of something that both wavers and skirmishes, and this suggests
another word which caught our eye in the dictionary, that is
BRANGLE
It is defined in the _N.E.D._ as 'a brawl, wrangle, squabble' and
marked _obsolete_. It seems to differ from its numerous synonyms by
the suggestion of what we call a muddle: that is an active wrangling
which has become inextricably confused.
SURVIVALS IN LANCASHIRE SPEECH
Mr. Ernest Stenhouse sends us notes on Tract II, from which we extract
the following:
'_Poll_ (= to cut the hair) is still familiar in Lancashire. _Tickle_
(unstable) is obsolescent but not yet obsolete. As a child I often
heard _meterly_ (= moderately): e.g. _meterly fausse_ (? false) =
moderately cunning. It may still be in use. _Bout_ (= without = A.S.
butan) is commonly heard.
'The words tabulated in Tract II, p. 34, and the following pairs are
not homophones in Lancashire: stork, stalk; pattern, patten; because
although the _r_ in stork and pattern is not trilled as in Scotland,
it is distinctly indicated by a modification of the preceding vowel,
somewhat similar to that heard in the _[(or]e_ words (p. 35).
'Homophony may arise from a failure to make distinctions that are
recognized in P.S.P. Thus in Lancashire the diphthong sound in _flow_,
_snow_, _bone_, _coal_, _those_, &c., is very often pronounced as a
pure vowel (cf. French _eau_, _mot_): hence confusion arises between
_flow_ and _flaw_, _sow_ and _saw_, _coal_ and _call_: both these
vowel sounds tending to become indistinguishable from the French
_eau_.'
FEASIBLE
_Feasible_ is a good example of a word which appears in danger of
being lost through incorrect and ignorant use. It can very well
happen that a word which is not quite comfortable may feel its way
to a useful place in defiance of etymology; and in such cases it is
pedantry to object to its instinctive vagaries. But _feasible_ is a
well-set comfortable word which is being ignorantly deprived of its
useful definite signification. In the following note Mr. Fowler puts
its case clearly, and his quotations, being typically illustrative of
the manner in which this sort of mischief comes about, are worthy of
attention.
'With those who feel that the use of an ordinary word for an ordinary
notion does not do justice to their vocabulary or sufficiently exhibit
their cultivation, who in fact prefer the stylish to the working word,
_feasible_ is now a prime favourite. Its proper sense is "capable of
being done, accomplished, or carried out". That is, it means the same
as _possible_ in one of the latter's senses, and its true function
is to be used instead of _possible_ where that might be ambiguous. _A
thunderstorm is possible_ (but not _feasible_). Irrigation is possible
(or, indifferently, _feasible_). _A counter-revolution is possible_;
i.e., (a) one may for all we know happen, or (b) we can if we choose
bring one about; but, if _b_ is the meaning, _feasible_ is better than
_possible_ because it cannot properly bear sense _a_, and therefore
obviates ambiguity.
'The wrong use of _feasible_ is that in which, by a slipshod
extension, it is allowed to have also the other sense of _possible_,
and that of _probable_. This is described by the highest authority
as "hardly a justifiable sense etymologically, and ... recognized
by no dictionary". It is however becoming very common; in all the
following quotations, it will be seen that the natural word would
be either _possible_ or _probable_, one of which should have been
chosen:--Continuing, Mr. Wood said: "I think it is very feasible that
the strike may be brought to an end this week, and it is a significant
coincidence that ...". / Witness said it was quite feasible that if he
had had night binoculars he would have seen the iceberg earlier. / We
ourselves believe that this is the most feasible explanation of the
tradition. / This would appear to offer a feasible explanation of the
scaffold puzzle.'
PROTAGONIST
Mr. Sargeaunt (on p. 26) suggests that we might do well to keep the
full Greek form of this word, and speak and write _protagonistes_.
Familiarity with _Agonistes_ in the title of Milton's drama, where
it is correctly used as equivalent to 'mighty champion', would be
misleading, and the rejection of the English form 'protagonist' seems
otherwise undesirable. The following remarks by Mr. Fowler show that
popular diction is destroying the word; and if ignorance be allowed
its way we shall have a good word destroyed.
'The word that has so suddenly become a prime favourite with
journalists, who more often than not make it mean champion or advocate
or defender, has no right whatever to any of those meanings, and
almost certainly owes them to the mistaking of the first syllable
(representing Greek [Greek: prôtos] "first") for [Greek: pro] "on
behalf of"--a mistake made easy by the accidental resemblance to
_antagonist_. "Accidental", since the Greek [Greek: agônistês] has
different meanings in the two words, in one "combatant", but in
the other "play-actor". The Greek [Greek: prôtagônistês] means the
actor who takes the chief part in a play--a sense readily admitting of
figurative application to the most conspicuous personage in any affair.
The deuteragonist and tritagonist take parts of second and third
importance, and to talk of several protagonists, or of a chief
protagonist or the like, is an absurdity. In the newspapers it is a
rarity to meet _protagonist_ in a legitimate sense; but two examples
of it are put first in the following collection. All the others are
outrages on this learned-sounding word, because some of them
distinguish between chief protagonists and others who are not chief,
some state or imply that there are more protagonists than one in an
affair, and the rest use _protagonist_ as a mere synonym for advocate.
'Legitimate uses: _The "cher Halévy" who is the protagonist of the
amazing dialogue. / Marco Landi, the protagonist and narrator of a
story which is skilfully contrived and excellently told, is a fairly
familiar type of soldier of fortune._
'Absurd uses with _chief_, &c.: _The chief protagonist is a young
Nonconformist minister. / Unlike a number of the leading protagonists
in the Home Rule fight, Sir Edward Carson was not in Parliament
when.... / It presents a spiritual conflict, centred about its two
chief protagonists, but shared in by all its characters._
'Absurd plural uses: _One of the protagonists of that glorious fight
for Parliamentary Reform in 1866 is still actively among us. / One
of these immense protagonists must fall, and, as we have already
foreshadowed, it is the Duke. / By a tragic but rapid process of
elimination most of the protagonists have now been removed. / As on a
stage where all the protagonists of a drama assemble at the end of the
last act. / That letter is essential to a true understanding of
the relations of the three great protagonists at this period. / The
protagonists in the drama, which has the motion and structure of a
Greek tragedy_ (Fy! fy!--a Greek tragedy and protagonists?).
'Confusions with _advocate_, &c.: _The new Warden is a strenuous
protagonist of that party in Convocation. / Mr ----, an enthusiastic
protagonist of militant Protestantism. / The chief protagonist on the
company's side in the latest railway strike, Mr ----. / It was a
happy thought that placed in the hands of the son of one of the great
protagonists of Evolution the materials for the biography of another.
/ But most of the protagonists of this demand have shifted their
ground. / As for what the medium himself or his protagonists may think
of them--for etymological purposes that is neither here nor there._
'Perhaps we need not consider the Greek scholar's feelings; he
has many advantages over the rest of us, and cannot expect that in
addition he shall be allowed to forbid us a word that we find useful.
Is it useful? or is it merely a pretentious blundering substitute for
words that are useful? _Pro-_ in _protagonist_ is not the opposite of
_anti-_; _-agonist_ is not the same as in _antagonist_; _advocate_
and _champion_ and _defender_ and _combatant_ are better words for the
wrong senses given to _protagonist_; and _protagonist_ in its right
sense of _the_ (not _a_) chief actor in an affair has still work to do
if it could only be allowed to mind its own business.'
* * * * *
AMERICAN APPRECIATION
We are glad to reprint the following short extracts from the _New York
Times Book Review and Magazine_, September 26, 1920.
'THE CAMPAIGN FOR PURE ENGLISH
'Among those who joined it (the S.P.E.) immediately were
Arthur J. Balfour, A.C. Bradley, Austin Dobson, Thomas Hardy,
J.W. Mackail, Gilbert Murray, Mrs. Humphry Ward, and Mrs.
Wharton.... The rallying of these men and women of letters
was not more significant than the prompt adhesion of the
Professors of English in the various British Universities:
W.M. Dixon, Oliver Elton, E.S. Gordon, C.H. Herford, W.P.
Ker, G.C. Moore-Smith, F.W. Moorman, A. Quiller-Couch, George
Saintsbury, and H.C.K. Wyld....
'There is a peril to the proper development of the language in
offensive affectations, in persistent pedantry, and in other
results of that comprehensive ignorance of the history of
English, which we find plentifully revealed in many of our
grammars. It is high time that men who love the language, who
can use it deftly and forcibly, and who are acquainted with
the principles and the processes of its growth, should raise
the standard of independence....
'It is encouraging to realize that the atrophy of the
word-making habit is less obvious in the United States than
it is in Great Britain.... We cannot but regret that it is
not now possible to credit to their several inventors American
compounds of a delightful expressiveness--_windjammer,
loan-shark, scare-head_, and that more delectable
_pussy-footed_--all of them verbal creations with an
imaginative quality almost Elizabethan in its felicity, and
all of them examples of the purest English.... We Americans
made the compound _farm-hand_, and employ it in preference to
the British [English?] _agricultural labourer_.
'_The attention of the officers of the society may be called
to the late Professor Lounsbury's lively and enlightening_
History of the English Language, _and to Professor George
Philip Krapp's illuminating study of_ Modern English.
BRANDER MATTHEWS.'
* * * * *
REPORT
Of the proceedings of the Society for the first year ending Xmas,
1920.
The Society still remains governed by the small committee of its
original founders: the support of the public and the press has been
altogether satisfactory: the suggestions and programme which the
committee originally put forward have met with nothing but favourable
criticism; no opposition has been aroused, and we are therefore
encouraged to meet the numerous invitations that we have received from
all parts of the English-speaking world to make our activities more
widely known. The sale of the Tracts has been sufficient to pay their
expenses; and we are in this respect very much indebted to the Oxford
University Press for its generous co-operation; for it has enabled us
to offer our subscribers good workmanship at a reasonable price. The
publication of this Tract IV closes our first 'year': we regret that
the prevalent national disturbances have extended it beyond the solar
period, but the conditions render explanation and apology needless.
Our list shows 188 members, and their names include many well-known
men of letters, Professors of Literature, Editors, Journalists,
and others interested in the history and present condition of the
language. Nineteen members sent donations (above 10s. 6d.) which
together amounted to about £40; and thirty-two sent subscriptions of
ten shillings for the supply of one year's publications.
To these subscribers (whose names are printed in the list below) all
the four Tracts for this year have been sent: and it will appear that
since they might have bought the four Tracts for 7s. 6d., they have
made a donation of 2s. 6d. apiece to the funds of the Society. This
margin is very useful and we hope that they will renew their 10s.
subscription in advance for the ensuing year. That will ensure their
receiving the Society's papers as they are issued, and it will
much assist the machinery of publication. Also Members who have not
hitherto subscribed are now specially invited to do so. They can
judge of the Society's work, and can best support it in this way.
The publications of 1921 _will be sent as soon as issued to all such
subscribers_.
Subscriptions may be sent to the Secretary, L. Pearsall Smith, 11 St.
Leonard's Terrace, Chelsea, London, S.W., to whom all communications
should be addressed, or they may be paid direct to 'Treasurer of
S.P.E.', Barclay's Bank, High Street, Oxford.
* * * * *
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS