* * * * *
No. 135. Saturday, August 4, 1711. Addison.
'Est brevitate opus, ut currat Sententia ...'
Hor.
I have somewhere read of an eminent Person, who used in his private
Offices of Devotion to give Thanks to Heaven that he was born a
_Frenchman:_ For my own part, I look upon it as a peculiar Blessing that
I was Born an _Englishman_. Among many other Reasons, I think my self
very happy in my Country, as the _Language_ of it is wonderfully adapted
to a Man [who [1]] is sparing of his Words, and an Enemy to Loquacity.
As I have frequently reflected on my good Fortune in this Particular, I
shall communicate to the Publick my Speculations upon the, _English_
Tongue, not doubting but they will be acceptable to all my curious
Readers.
The _English_ delight in Silence more than any other _European_ Nation,
if the Remarks which are made on us by Foreigners are true. Our
Discourse is not kept up in Conversation, but falls into more Pauses and
Intervals than in our Neighbouring Countries; as it is observed, that
the Matter of our Writings is thrown much closer together, and lies in a
narrower Compass than is usual in the Works of Foreign Authors: For, to
favour our Natural Taciturnity, when we are obliged to utter our
Thoughts, we do it in the shortest way we are able, and give as quick a
Birth to our Conception as possible.
This Humour shows itself in several Remarks that we may make upon the
_English_ Language. As first of all by its abounding in Monosyllables,
which gives us an Opportunity of delivering our Thoughts in few Sounds.
This indeed takes off from the Elegance of our Tongue, but at the same
time expresses our Ideas in the readiest manner, and consequently
answers the first Design of Speech better than the Multitude of
Syllables, which make the Words of other Languages more Tunable and
Sonorous. The Sounds of our _English_ Words are commonly like those of
String Musick, short and transient, [which [2]] rise and perish upon a
single Touch; those of other Languages are like the Notes of Wind
Instruments, sweet and swelling, and lengthen'd out into variety of
Modulation.
In the next place we may observe, that where the Words are not
Monosyllables, we often make them so, as much as lies in our Power, by
our Rapidity of Pronounciation; as it generally happens in most of our
long Words which are derived from the _Latin_, where we contract the
length of the Syllables that give them a grave and solemn Air in their
own Language, to make them more proper for Dispatch, and more
conformable to the Genius of our Tongue. This we may find in a multitude
of Words, as _Liberty, Conspiracy, Theatre, Orator_, &c.
The same natural Aversion to Loquacity has of late Years made a very
considerable Alteration in our Language, by closing in one Syllable the
Termination of our Præterperfect Tense, as in the Words, _drown'd, walk'
d, arriv'd_, for _drowned, walked, arrived_, which has very much
disfigured the Tongue, and turned a tenth part of our smoothest Words
into so many Clusters of Consonants. This is the more remarkable,
because the want of Vowels in our Language has been the general
Complaint of our politest Authors, who nevertheless are the Men that
have made these Retrenchments, and consequently very much increased our
former Scarcity.
This Reflection on the Words that end in _ed_, I have heard in
Conversation from one of the greatest Genius's this Age has produced.
[3] I think we may add to the foregoing Observation, the Change which
has happened in our Language, by the Abbreviation of several Words that
are terminated in _eth_, by substituting an _s_ in the room of the last
Syllable, as in _drowns, walks, arrives_, and innumerable other Words,
which in the Pronunciation of our Forefathers were _drowneth, walketh,
arriveth_. This has wonderfully multiplied a Letter which was before too
frequent in the _English_ Tongue, and added to that _hissing_ in our
Language, which is taken so much notice of by Foreigners; but at the
same time humours our Taciturnity, and eases us of many superfluous
Syllables.
I might here observe, that the same single Letter on many Occasions does
the Office of a whole Word, and represents the _His_ and _Her_ of our
Forefathers. There is no doubt but the Ear of a Foreigner, which is the
best Judge in this Case, would very much disapprove of such Innovations,
which indeed we do our selves in some measure, by retaining the old
Termination in Writing, and in all the solemn Offices of our Religion.
As in the Instances I have given we have epitomized many of our
particular Words to the Detriment of our Tongue, so on other Occasions
we have drawn two Words into one, which has likewise very much untuned
our Language, and clogged it with Consonants, as _mayn't, can't,
shd'n't, wo'n't_, and the like, for _may not, can not, shall not, will
not_, &c.
It is perhaps this Humour of speaking no more than we needs must, which
has so miserably curtailed some of our Words, that in familiar Writings
and Conversations they often lose all but their first Syllables, as in
_mob._ _rep._ _pos._ _incog._ and the like; and as all ridiculous Words
make their first Entry into a Language by familiar Phrases, I dare not
answer for these that they will not in time be looked upon as a part of
our Tongue. We see some of our Poets have been so indiscreet as to
imitate _Hudibras's_ Doggrel Expressions in their serious Compositions,
by throwing out the Signs of our Substantives, which are essential to
the English Language. Nay, this Humour of shortning our Language had
once run so far, that some of our celebrated Authors, among whom we may
reckon Sir _Roger E Estrange_ in particular, began to prune their Words
of all superfluous Letters, as they termed them, in order to adjust the
Spelling to the Pronunciation; which would have confounded all our
Etymologies, and have quite destroyed our Tongue.
We may here likewise observe that our proper Names, when familiarized in
English, generally dwindle to Monosyllables, whereas in other modern
Languages they receive a softer Turn on this Occasion, by the Addition
of a new Syllable. _Nick_ in _Italian_ is _Nicolini_, _Jack in French
_Janot_; and so of the rest.
There is another Particular in our Language which is a great Instance of
our Frugality of Words, and that is the suppressing of several Particles
which must be produced in other Tongues to make a Sentence intelligible.
This often perplexes the best Writers, when they find the Relatives
whom, which, or they at their Mercy whether they may have Admission or
not; and will never be decided till we have something like an Academy,
that by the best Authorities and Rules drawn from the Analogy of
Languages shall settle all Controversies between Grammar and Idiom.
I have only considered our Language as it shows the Genius and natural
Temper of the _English_, which is modest, thoughtful and sincere, and
which perhaps may recommend the People, though it has spoiled the
Tongue. We might perhaps carry the same Thought into other Languages,
and deduce a greater Part of what is peculiar to them from the Genius of
the People who speak them. It is certain, the light talkative Humour of
the _French_ has not a little infected their Tongue, which might be
shown by many Instances; as the Genius of the _Italians_, which is so
much addicted to Musick and Ceremony, has moulded all their Words and
Phrases to those particular Uses. The Stateliness and Gravity of the
_Spaniards_ shews itself to Perfection in the Solemnity of their
Language, and the blunt honest Humour of the _Germans_ sounds better in
the Roughness of the High Dutch, than it would in a politer Tongue.