American Language (92 page)

75
Alexander traces
spoke
back to Gower, 1390, and says that it was still accepted as the perfect participle of
to speak
as late as 1754.

76
Dr. Josiah Combs reports that in the Southern mountains “the ending
-ed
is usually dropped in the preterite in verbs whose infinitive ends in -
t
.” (
Dialect Notes
, Vol. IV, Pt. IV, 1916, p. 292.) In the general vulgate, I believe,
sweat
is fast becoming an invariable verb. I have heard “He
sweat
and puffed” and “I have
sweat
over it all night.”

77
Have took
is in The Biglow Papers, and Menner finds it in other humorous works of the period. He reports hearing it from the lips of his “people with little education and little literary background,” but his “people trained in some special profession (usually with college degrees)” seem to have been guiltless of it.
Tuck
as the preterite is listed as in common use in 1848 by Bartlett in his Dictionary of Americanisms.

78
To teach
, of course, is seldom heard.
To learn
is used in its place.

79
Bartlett, in his Dictionary of Americanisms, 1848, says that
tell’d
was then in common used as the preterite. It seems to have passed out.

80
Always used in place of
attend
. The preterite, it seems to me, sometimes takes a distinct
t
, as in “He
tent
to his business.”

81
Thunk
is never used seriously; it always shows humorous intent.

82
Menner reports hearing
thrung
, which he describes as an Irishism. I have never encountered it. There was a time when
trun
was often heard, both as preterite and as perfect participle, but it seems to have gone out.

83
Lardner once told me that he believed
win
was supplanting both
won
and
wan. Winned
is also heard.

84
Usually converted into
wisht
, as in “I
wisht
he would go,” the present tense being understood.

85
“
I have wrote
” was in good usage until the middle of the Eighteenth Century.

86
English As We Speak It In Ireland, 2nd ed.; London, 1910, p. 77.

87
Introduction to the Science of Language; London, 1900, Vol. I, p. 166.

88
The last stand of the distinct
-ed
was made in Addison’s day. He was in favor of retaining it, and in the
Spectator
for Aug. 4, 1711, he protested against obliterating the syllable in the termination “of our præter perfect tense; as in these 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.”

89
A New English Grammar; Oxford, 1900, Part I, p. 380.

90
The noun is commonly made
holt
, as in, “I got a
-holt
of it.”

91
History of the English Language; revised ed.; New York, 1894, p. 398.

92
The effort of purists to establish
broadcast
as the preterite has had some success on higher levels, but very little on lower. “Ed Wynn
broadcasted
last night” is what one commonly hears. The effort to justify
broadcast
by analogy with
cast
fails, for the preterite of
to cast
, in the vulgar speech, is not
cast
but
casted
.

93
The Verbs of the Vulgate,
American Speech
, Jan., 1926, pp. 238–9.

94
This, of course, was not the case invariably. More often the singular triumphed over the plural. See A History of Modern Colloquial English, by H. C. Wyld; London, 1920, p. 343.

95
In the paper just cited, pp. 236–7.

96
Supplied by Mr. B. A. Bergman.

97
Remark of a policeman talking to another. What he actually said was “before the Elks was
c’m ’ere” Come
and
here
were one word, approximately
cmear
. The context showed that he meant to use the past perfect tense. Dr. Kemp Malone reminds me that
was
was once the auxiliary of
come
, and still is in German.

98
The following curious example, sent to me by Dr. Morris Fishbein, editor of the
Journal of the American Medical Association
, is from a letter received by a California physician: “If I
had of
waited a day longer before I wrote to you I
would not of had
to write that letter to you.” Wallace Rice, in The Vulgate in American Fiction,
American Mercury
, Dec., 1927, protests against rendering the degenerated
have
as
of
. Even in Standard English, he argues, it is sometimes pronounced
uv
, and so should keep its proper spelling. To support this he brings forward many authorities. But the fact remains, as Lardner was quick to notice, that the plain people, when they seize pen in hand, often turn
have
into
of
.

99
There are many examples in The English of the Comic Cartoons, by Helen Trace Tysell,
American Speech
, Feb., 1935, p. 47.

100
These examples are from Lardner’s story, A New Busher Breaks In, in You Know Me, Al, p. 122
ff
.

101
Pronounced
hafta
, or, in the past tense,
hatta
. Sometimes the
d
is retained, and
had to
becomes
hadda
.

102
See American Use of the Subjunctive, by Thyra Jane Bevier,
American Speech
, Feb., 1931. Miss Bevier says that the late Walter Hines Page was the only American author of his time who used the subjunctive correctly. Says George Philip Krapp, in Modern English; New York, 1910, pp. 289–90: “Practically, the only construction in Modern English in which the subjunctive is in living, natural use, is in the condition contrary to fact: If I
were
you, I
shouldn’t
do it.”

103
In the negative,
ought not
has degenerated to
oughtna
or
oughten
, as in “You
oughtna
(or
oughten
) do that.”

104
Not
in American English,
American Speech
, Sept., 1927.

105
Oct. 21, 1931. Mark Twain, whose speechways were Southern, often used
don’t
in the singular. For example, in Innocents Abroad, 1869, p. 84: “Sometimes the patient gets well, but as a general thing he
don’t
.” Otto Jespersen, in A Modern English Grammar; Heidelberg, 1922, Vol. I, p. 228, says that the use of
don’t
for
doesn’t
“cannot be explained as a simple morphological substitution of one personal form of the verb for another, as
do
is not similarly substituted for
does
when
not
follows.” He finds analogues for it in
ent
(ain’t) for
isn’t
and
wan’t
for
wasn’t
.

106
This substitution of
use
for
used
is listed by Henry Harap among The Most Common Grammatical Errors,
English Journal
, June, 1930, p. 441.

107
Henry Bradley, in The Making of English; New York, 1904, pp. 54–5: “In the parts of England which were largely inhabited by Danes the native pronouns (
i.e., heo, hie, heom
and
heora
) were supplanted by the Scandinavian pronouns which are represented by the modern
she, they, them
and
their.
” This substitution, at first dialectical, gradually spread to the whole language.

108
See A New English Grammar, by Henry Sweet; Oxford, 1900, Pt. I, p. 344.

109
There is also a triple,
you-three
, but beyond that the device begins to fade.

110
It is commonly believed in the North that Southerners use
you-all
in the singular, but this is true, if it is ever true at all, of only the most ignorant of them. The word may be addressed to individuals, but only when they are thought of as representatives of a group. “Have
you-all
any eggs?” spoken to a storekeeper, means have you and your associates, the store as a group entity, any eggs. This distinction was elucidated at length by the late C. Alphonso Smith in
You-All
As Used in the South,
Uncle Remus’s Magazine
(Atlanta) July, 1907, reprinted in
Kit-Kat
(Columbus, O.), Jan., 1920. The literature of the subject is extensive and full of bitterness. See especially
You-All
and
We-All
, by Estelle Rees Morrison,
American Speech
, Dec., 1926;
You-All
and
We-All
Again, by Lowry Axley, the same, May, 1927;
You-All
, by G. B., the same, Aug., 1927;
You-All
, by W. Fischer, the same, Sept., 1927;
You-All
Again, by Estelle Rees Morrison, the same, Oct., 1928;
Y’All
, by Lowry Axley, the same, Dec., 1928; an anonymous note in the same, Dec., 1928, p. 158; One More Word on
You-All
, by Lowry Axley, the same, June, 1929; Mr. Axley and
You-All
, by Herbert B. Bernstein, the same, Dec., 1929; The Truth About
You-All
, by Bertram H. Brown,
American Mercury
, May, 1933, p. 116;
You-All
Again, by W. E. Nesom,
American Mercury
, June, 1933, p. 248;
You-All
Once Again, by Alba W. Duke,
American Mercury
, July, 1933, p. 377. The newspaper literature of the subject is enormous; I content myself with citing three articles:
You-All
Again (editorial) Richmond
Times-Dispatch
, May 24, 1925; Just a Moment, by Loudon Kelly, Denver
Rocky Mountain News
, Jan. 23, 1933;
You-All
, by H. L. Mencken, New York
American
, July 16, 1934.
You-All
has been traced by various fanciful writers to the French
vous tout
and to a somewhat analogous Pennsylvania German form. But Dr. Smith showed that it has deep roots in English. Mark Antony’s “You all did see upon the Lupercal” will be recalled. According to R. C. Goffin (
S.P.E. Tracts
, No. XLI, p. 26)
you-all
is also used by native speakers of English in India. He says that it is there a translation of a Hindustani idiom. In the South
who-all
and
what-all
are also common, and in the more remote mountain regions
you-uns
and
w-uns
dispute for place with
you-all
and
w-all
. See The Plural Forms of
You
, by E. C. Hills,
American Speech
, Dec., 1926, p. 133. In the Ozarks, says Vance Randolph in The Grammar of the Ozark Dialect,
American Speech
, Oct., 1927, p. 6, even
us-uns
is occasionally encountered.

111
Thou
was adopted by the Quakers,
c
. 1650, precisely because it had a connotation of humility. “This
thou
and
thee
,” said George Fox in his Journal, 1661, “was a sore cut to proud flesh, and them that sought self-honor; who, though they would say it to God and Christ, would not endure to have it said to themselves. So that we were often beaten and abused and sometimes in danger of our lives for using those words to some proud men, who would say, ’ What, you ill-bred clown, do you
thou
me?” How and when the Quakers came to substitute
thee
for
thou
in the nominative has not been established. In all probability the change was effected by the same process that has changed
you
to
y
’ in
y’ought
and
y’all
. The more careful Quakers still use
thou
in written discourse. But both
thou
and
thee
are passing out; save in the Philadelphia area, the younger members of the Society of Friends commonly use
you
. See The Speech of Plain Friends, by Kate W. Tibbals,
American Speech
, Jan., 1926; Quaker
Thee
and Its History, by E. K. Maxfield, the same, Sept., 1926; Quaker
Thee
and
Thou
, by E. K. Maxfield, the same, June, 1929.

112
It occurs, too, of course, in other dialects of English, though by no means in all. The Irish influence probably had something to do with its prosperity in vulgar American. At all events, the Irish use it in the American manner. Joyce, in English As We Speak It in Ireland, pp. 34–5, argues that this usage was suggested by Gaelic. In Gaelic the accusative pronouns,
e, i
and
iad
(
him, her
and
them
) are often used in place of the nominatives,
se, si
and
siad (he, she
and
they
), as in “Is
iad
sin na buachaillidhe” (
Them
are the boys). This is “good grammar” in Gaelic, and the Irish, when they began to learn English, translated the locution literally. The familiar Irish “John is dead and
him
always so hearty” shows the same influence.

113
The Rev. John Witherspoon, in The Druid, No. VI, May 16, 1781, denounced “
This-here
report of
that-there
committee.” He said: “Some merchants, whom I could name, in the English Parliament, whose wealth and not merit raised them to that dignity, use this vulgarism very freely, and expose themselves to abundance of ridicule by so doing.”

114
S. A. Leonard, in Current English Usage, says that “
Who
are you looking for?” is “established.” “The linguists,” he says, “rated it higher than did any of the other groups of judges [appointed by the National Council of Teachers of English]; the other groups placed the expression among disputed usages. All the groups save the business men and authors gave majorities for approval.” J. Y. T. Greig, in Breaking Priscian’s Head; London, 1929, denounces
whom
in this situation as “pedantry” and “schoolmarmery.” “Every sensible English-speaker on both sides of the Atlantic,” he declares, “says ‘
Who
were you talking to?’ and the sooner we begin to write it the better.
Whom
is a relic of the bad old days when inflections were cherished for their own sake.”