Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter mobile phone number.
Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language Kindle Edition
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Stiff Upper Lips
Why Can’t the British Be More Like Us?
Winston Churchill gave the folks at Bartlett’s plenty of fodder for their books of Familiar Quotations: “so much owed by so many to so few” . . . “blood, toil, tears, and sweat” . . . “this was their finest hour” . . . and more. But he didn’t describe England and America as “two nations divided by a common language,” though thousands of websites say so. What he did, though, was pass along a great story about how the two nations were indeed divided by their two Englishes at a meeting of Allied leaders during World War II.
“The enjoyment of a common language was of course a supreme advantage in all British and American discussions,” Churchill wrote in The Second World War. No interpreters were needed, for one thing, but there were “differences of expression, which in the early days led to an amusing incident.” The British wanted to raise an urgent matter, he said, and told the Americans they wished to “table it” (that is, bring it to the table). But to the Americans, tabling something meant putting it aside. “A long and even acrimonious argument ensued,” Churchill wrote, “before both parties realised that they were agreed on the merits and wanted the same thing.”
I’m no mind reader, but I’ll bet the Brits at the table felt their English was the real thing, while the Yanks felt apologetic about theirs. If there’s one thing our two peoples agree on, it’s that British English is purer than its American offshoot. My in-box gets pinged every week or two by a Brit with his knickers in a twist or an American with an inferiority complex. A typical comment: “Why do you refer to ‘American English’ and ‘British English’ Surely it should be ‘American English’ and ‘proper English.’” Ouch! Is their English really more proper—that is, purer—than ours? Which one is more like the English spoken in the 1600s when the Colonies and the mother country began diverging linguistically?
First of all, “American English” and “British English” are how authorities refer to the two major branches of English, and reflect the changes in the language since the Colonies separated themselves linguistically from England. The differences are many, but they’re minor from a grammarian’s point of view. Most have to do with spelling, pronunciation, and usage. En?glish grammar is English grammar no matter where you live, despite a few exceptions here and there.
The truth is that neither English is more proper. In some respects American English is purer than British English: We’ve preserved some usages and spellings and pronunciations that have changed over time in Britain. But the reverse is also true. The British have preserved much that has changed on our side of the Atlantic. In many cases, it’s nearly impossible to tell which branch has history on its side. Take “table,” the word that gave those Allied leaders such grief. In the eighteenth century, the phrase “to lay on the table” could mean either to bring up or to defer. By the nineteenth century, the Brits had preserved one of those meanings and the Yanks the other. So the verb “table” meant one thing there and quite another here.
In case you’re wondering who should get the credit for that crack about “two nations divided by a common language,” the answer is nobody exactly. George Bernard Shaw was quoted in 1942 as saying, “England and America are two countries separated by the same language.” But nobody is certain where or when he said it. What we do know is that Oscar Wilde said the same thing in different words in 1887: “We have really everything in common with America nowadays, except, of course, language.”
We’ve all seen My Fair Lady, on stage or screen or iPod or whatever, and we all have our favorite scenes. One of mine is the bit where Henry Higgins, the arrogant professor of phonetics, first encounters the flower girl Eliza Doolittle at Covent Garden and is appalled by her Cockney accent. Higgins belittles her for turning the language of Shakespeare and Milton into “such disgusting and depressing noise,” and she screeches, “Ah-ah-aw-aw-
oo-oo.” Fed up with her “detestable boo-hooing,” he sings, “Why can’t the English learn to speak?”
So what would a real Professor Higgins make of the way Americans speak? We don’t have to look hard to find the answer, and many apologetic Americans may be surprised to hear it. Professor William A. Read, a distinguished linguist, put it this way in a journal of philology: “The pronunciation of educated Americans is in many respects more archaic than that of educated Englishmen.” This should be no surprise, he said, since “the phonetic basis of American pronunciation rests chiefly on the speech of Englishmen of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.” And those Englishmen sounded much like the Americans of today. The “English accent” that we now associate with educated British speech is a relatively new phenomenon and ?didn’t develop until after the American Revolution.
Look at the way the letter r is pronounced (or not pronounced), perhaps the most important difference in the speech of educated people in the US and the UK. Since Anglo-Saxon days, the English had pronounced the r in words like “far,” “mother,” “world,” “church,” and “mourn.” English speakers on both sides of the Atlantic pronounced the r’s in these words when the Colonies broke away from England. Most Americans still do. But educated people in Britain began dropping their r’s in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The Americans most likely to drop their r’s were those, like New Englanders, who had strong commercial and social ties with the mother country.
This dropping of r’s in Britain ?didn’t happen all of a sudden, and the sticklers of the day ?didn’t take it lying down. “The perception that the language was ‘losing a letter’ was a cause of profound upset to some writers,” the linguist David Crystal has written. The poet Keats, for example, was cruelly upbraided by critics for rhyming “thoughts” with “sorts,” and “thorns” with “fawns.” Lord Byron blamed a critical article for hastening Keats’s death in 1821: “’Tis strange the mind, that very fiery particle, / Should let itself be snuffed out by an Article.” But by the time Keats died, the dropped r was a standard feature of educated British pronunciation.
The other letter that’s a dead giveaway in telling a Brit from a Yank is the a in a word like “past.” We all know how an American would say it—with an a like the one in “cat.” And as anyone who’s watched Masterpiece Theatre can tell you, the standard British pronunciation is PAHST. But it wasn’t always so. The Brits used to say it the same way Americans do now. Here again, the Americans stuck with an old way of speaking, one the British abandoned about the same time they dropped their r’s.
The a, like the r, has ping-ponged in British pronunciation. Until the 1500s, the English did indeed pronounce words like “bath” and “laugh” and “dance” with an “ah.” But in the sixteenth century they began pronouncing the a in what we now consider the American way (as in “cat”). So things remained for the next two or three hundred years. This is the a that went to America on the Mayflower in 1620. And this is the a that both the Redcoats and the Colonists used during the Revolutionary War. Not until the 1780s did Londoners begin pronouncing their a’s like “ahs” again, and for a few decades the broad a and the short a battled it out. But by the early 1800s, educated Britain was saying BAHTH and LAHF and DAHNCE.
That’s also about when literate Britons started pronouncing the h in “herb.” Before the nineteenth century, both the English and Americans pronounced it ERB. In fact, the word was usually spelled “erbe” for the first few hundred years after it was borrowed from the Old French erbe in the 1200s. The h was added later as a nod to the Latin original (herba, or grass), but the letter was silent. Today, Americans pronounce “herb” the way Shakespeare did, with a silent h, while the Bard wouldn’t recognize the word in the mouths of the English.
Speaking of aitches, some British speakers, especially on the telly, use “an” before words like “historic” or “hotel,” and some Anglophiles over here are slavishly imitating them. For shame! Usage manuals on both sides of the Atlantic say the article to use is “a,” not “an.” The rule is that we use “a” before a word that begins with an h that’s pronounced and “an” before a word that starts with a silent h. And dictionaries in both Britain and the United States say the h should be pronounced in “historic” and “hotel” as well as “heroic,” “habitual,” “hypothesis,” “horrendous,” and some other problem h-words.
When the British aren’t adding or subtracting an h, stretching out an a, or dropping an r, they’re chopping off whole syllables from words like “secretary,” “necessary,” “military,” “extraordinary,” “satisfactory,” “literary,” and others. “Secretary,” for example, is shortened to SEC-ruh-tre... --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
About the Author
Stewart Kellerman has been an editor at The New York Times and a foreign correspondent for UPI in Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. He co-authored You Send Me with his wife, Patricia T. O’Conner, and he runs their website and blog at grammarphobia.com. They live in rural Connecticut. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
- ASIN : B0027MJTWO
- Publisher : Random House (25 April 2009)
- Language : English
- File size : 793 KB
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Screen Reader : Supported
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Not Enabled
- Word Wise : Not Enabled
- Print length : 266 pages
- Best Sellers Rank: #913,808 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- Customer Reviews:
Review this product
Top review from India
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The book discusses the origins of language's strange rules
and, in some cases, their absurdities.
OÇonner's books should be read by all who love English
and also by those who feel confused by its illogical rules.
I have read 'Woe is I' by the same writer and love it.
Top reviews from other countries
Apparently, everything in English English is wrong or misguided while uS English stands like a proud bastion, the last refuge of the English language.
In general, I have a great admiration for our American cousins; it is a pity this particular one hates England so much.
後の章の紹介は省略するがいずれも現在の英語の語法を、古くはジョンソンの辞書（1755）、ウエブスターの辞書（1828）、新しくはOED、AHD、Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usageを縦横に引用し、著者自身の見解を披露している。本書は
Someday the old meanings of “ironic” and “unique” and the rest will no doubt be lost forever, mere footnotes in the history of English. Perhaps in trying to keep them alive, I’m the one who’s nurturing myths. My mind tells me we can’t save them, but my heart won’t let them go. Like Webster’s dictionary, I’m morocco bound.
という一節で終わる。Like Webster’s dictionary, I’m morocco boundはBing Crosby and Bob Hope主演の古い映画のセリフに由来することは引用句事典で突き止めたが、この文脈ではどう解するのか難しい。ウエブスターのAn American Dictionary of the English Labguage (1828)はモロッコ皮装で、アメリカ辞書史の金字塔と言われるが、内容も装丁も時代的に古めかしくなったことは否めない。「（時代の流れに水を差すようなことを言っていたら）私もウエブスターの辞書と同様の運命をたどることになろう」という意味であろうか。本書はこういった少しひねった文章が随所にある。やさしそうで手ごわい書である。
What I find so interesting about words and word books--especially this one--is how living languages can't be frozen in time. Words that once meant one thing often come to mean something else. Take, for example, three that are currently worming their way into acceptability while driving the word police bonkers. 1. "Hopefully," when positioned at the front of a sentence as a less uppity way of saying "it is to be hoped." 2. "Presently," frequently used to mean "at present" which is wrong but sounds right, rather than "soon" which is right but sounds wrong and 3. The "n't" that's so often missing these days from "I couldn't care less."
Here are some other things a browse through this book may surprise you with:
How and why it came to be that, no matter what Prince Charles says, American English is more English than British English.
That much of the "French" that's invaded English is decidedly faux. For example, go to a shop in Paris and ask for a "brassierre" and what you'll get is a baby's undershirt.
That reducing "Christmas" to "Xmas," isn't a modern day commercial abomination, but goes back at least as far as 1551. And that "try and" has been driving grammarians bonkers for longer than you think. Even Jane Austen used it.
Also: Why "ironic" may be just too sophisticated for its own good...and "unique" is losing its uniqueness...why "till" is correct and "'til" isn't...why there's actually nothing sexist about the word "woman"...how and why baseball writers turned leg cramps into "charley horses"...
And...ta da! All that needless kerfuffle about it being WRONG to split infinitives and WRONG to start sentences with conjunctions and WRONG to end them with prepositions, when it's actually, really and truly NOT WRONG to do any of that. Seems those "rules" trace back to some misguided grammarians way back when who tried to marry the rules of English, which is a Germanic language, to those of Latin, which isn't.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. And highly recommended.
That makes it comfortable to read this book. You're not an idiot for using the words and phrases you use. It's nice to be told that you're right, isn't it?
This was a "slow read" for me, because I kept stopping to consider what I was reading. Ordinarily, that frustrates me terribly. Writing should - ordinarily - get out of the way of the story that's being told. But I didn't mind it in this case.
This is a great book for wordsmiths, and not a bad one for serious readers. Probably not that interesting to folks of average or below-average intelligence.