papers, or to be heard in the colloquial language of this country, that differs from the language of the best English authors, and to call these Americanisms, and to denounce us as corrupters of the English tongue, is manifestly unjust. The colloquial language of the two countries differs much more than the written language. We have common standards for the one, while in the other, the racy, idiomatic expressions have been lost by reason of our separation, and their places have frequently been supplied by the strong but inelegant expressions that may, too often, be designated as slang. Bartlett has gathered from all sources, but chiefly from the humorous writers of this country, many hundreds of words and phrases, which he styles Americanisms. Many of them, however, are really good English; and surely the slang expressions of this country no more represent the language of America, than does the argot of some of the low characters of Eugene Sue's novels represent the language of the cultivated class of the French capital, or the "flash" language of London low life represent that of elegant society in the West End. Slang and even archaic modes of expression ought to be excluded from any just estimate of the "deterioration "which the Queen's English has undergone at the hands "of the Americans." And yet these, we think, constitute the great body of the corruptions which we are charged with having introduced.

It is undoubtedly true that the English language is spoken much more correctly by the mass of the people in America than by the corresponding class in England; but it is also true that the best educated people in England deviate less frequently from the standard of good English than do our best scholars in America. In

other words, the educated class employ better English in their conversation, not in their writings, than the same class in America. Although dialects do not exist among us, and the language has achieved a remarkable degree of purity and uniformity, yet there are peculiarities that distinguish the different sections of the country. The nasal intonation of New England, the omission of the h after w in the Middle States, the drawl of the Southern, and the peculiar accent of the Western States, seem to us to mark unmistakably the inhabitants of the different parts of the land.

While noticing the errors either of Dean Alford himself, or those to whieh he calls attention, it may be well to glance at some of the mistakes that are made even by well-educated people among ourselves. The Dean, in ungrammatical English, condemns the practice of omitting the "u" in the termination "our." He hopes, with Archdeacon Hare, that the "abomination will be confined "to the cards of the great vulgar, and to books printed "in America."

Recent investigation, however, shows that spelling honor, favor, &c., without the “u” is not an Americanism, for it actually prevailed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Although sympathizing with the Dean in his view, we think it useless to attempt to stem the current. One word, we trust, will be kept sacred from this innovation. An Englishman once remarked, "We scarcely "know our Saviour in your American language." "By "removing a single letter from the holy word Saviour, "you would shock the piety of millions," says Johnson in Landor. Let the word "Saviour" at least remain intact; we will yield the others without discussing the question of their derivation from Latin or French originals.

The next subject which the Dean takes up is that of pronunciation. Anyone who has met Englishmen even casually, has been struck with the difference between their mode of pronunciation and that of Americans The English clip their words, the Americans enunciate every syllable distinctly; the English articulate the consonants plainly; the Americans dwell upon the vowels. It is certain that we are more easily understood by foreigners, and that we acquire the pronunciation of foreign languages with greater facility. The French say that the English can rarely enunciate the French sounds correctly, while the Americans are next to the Russians and the Poles in the ease with which, they acquire a command of the language. Whether this is merely the language of compliment or not, we are unable to say. Whatever may be our faults in pronunciation, we are free from that which the Dean pronounces the worst of all, the misuse of the aspirate, the exasperating "exhas"piration," as it has been termed. It is remarkable that the English are not the only people who have engaged in this war of extermination. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans the tendency of the vulgar was to omit the aspirate in the words to which it belongs, and the sound of "h" is no longer heard in the languages of Southern Europe. The best authorities deny this letter any power in French, save that of preventing the elision of the Vowel of the article, or the liaison, in connection with the words beginning with the so-called aspirate "h." England then does not stand alone in this respect, and the history of the language proves that the error existed several centuries since.

Although we do not have the same trouble as the English in reference to the "h," yet in the Middle

States the words beginning with "wh” are very generally pronounced incorrectly. The same error prevails in England, although not to so great an extent. Thus, no distinction is made between when and wen, whet and wet, white and wight, wheel and weal, which and witch, whine and wine; although the words contrast ludicrously enough when pronounced together. By recalling the fact that originally the "h" preceded the "w" in the or thography, as it still does in the correct pronunciation, the difficulty will be obviated. We are not noticing the faults of the vulgar and ignorant, so much as those of educated persons. In the English House of Parliament, and in good society in this country, one may hear such expressions as the "lawr of the land," the "idear of a "God," "Jehovahr," "peninsular," &c., as if persons were unwilling, or did not have sufficient energy, to cut off the sound when they arrive at the end of a word. In the Southern States, on the contrary, the tendency is to omit the "” at the end of words, e.g., doah instead of door, although we believe that even in New York the final "r" is often transformed into "h."

We may here notice a group of errors in reference to the sound of "o"; these are doos for does, chiefly in Connecticut; nothing for nothing (nuthing,) throughout New England; Lard for Lord also in New England; hoarse and moarning for horse and morning, both in New Jersey; pore for poor, in the South. These may seem small things, and yet they indicate the finished and accurate scholar. The English pronounce the name of God very short, God, while the Americans prolong the "o" and pronounce the word as if written Gawd. The English may be correct, but it is too late for us to rectify the error, if it is one.

In France there is an Academy to preserve the language in its purity and propriety; in Germany the stage regulates the language to a considerable extent; while in England the usage of the learned professions and of Parliament is the ordinary standard of appeal. But in this country, at least outside of our great cities, the ministry exerts more influence upon the pronunciation of the language than any other class of society. It is of the utmost importance, then, that they should be 'ensamples to the flock" in language, as well as in conduct; and while seeking to amend the life, they should not corrupt the speech of the people. Ministers often pronounce incorrectly the proper names of Scripture. We coincide with the Dean in considering this fault as inexcusable, because a reference to the original at once decides the pronunciation. It would, however, be pure affectation to pronounce Alexandria, Philadelphia, Samaria, &c., because English usage differs from the original in the pronunciation of these names. It is unpardonable in a minister to murder the name of Daniel by pronouncing it in two syllables. It is certainly great cruelty to knock out its "i", especially as it is a Cyclops. Pharaoh, on the contrary, is a dissyllable. Some persons, through a desire to avoid what they conceive to be a vulgarism, pronounce the "t" in "apostle," "epistle," and "often." It is, however silent, and this "licensed "barbarism" is the only correct mode of pronouncing these words. The words "covetous" and "covetousness are often mangled by inserting an nouncing them "covetious" and "covetiousness these we may add "heinious" and "heiniousness." We may mention here, incidentally, that in the attempt to correct this awful pronunciation, the Dean's original

66 29

Չ

in pro

and to