A Book About Words

by G. F. Graham

One rather curious explanation has been given of the word ‘guess.’ It is well known that the Americans use it in the sense of to know for certain. ‘I guess’ is equivalent, in American phraseology, to ‘I know it’—‘I am sure of it.’ Now, it has been argued that this is the proper meaning of the word—that it is derived from the German ‘gewiss,’ which comes originally from ‘wissen,’ to know. When first imported into America, in the seventeenth century, they say that it had this meaning in English—that we in England have since then altered the meaning of the word, and that the Americans have preserved its original signification. Even supposing that this could be proved, it does not follow that the American practice is the right one; nor, of course, that we should alter our present meaning of the word, and conform to the American custom. The fountain-head of the English language is in England, and in no other country; and all departures from the English use of English words must be looked upon as faults against purity of style.

Americanisms may be considered under two heads—1st, legitimate English words used in a wrong sense; and, 2nd, words of a new invention, mutilated or distorted from some known or unknown root. In the first class we may place the adjective ‘tall.’ This the Americans use in a novel and unrecognised sense. In English it is properly applied only to concrete nouns; as, ‘a tall man,’ or ‘a tall tree,’ &c. But, in the United States, we continually hear of ‘tall talk,’ or even ‘a tall smell,’ &c. It is not the word that is here objected to, but the sense in which it is applied. To ‘raise’ is another of this class, which is constantly used for ‘to educate,’ or ‘bring up.’ ‘Where were you raised?’ is, in America, a very common question. Again, the word ‘liquor’ is a perfectly good English noun; but what a strange innovation is ‘to liquor!’ A genuine Yankee says, ‘Stranger, will you “liquor?”’ ‘Handsome,’ ‘clever,’ and ‘fix’ are all three genuine English, but ‘to play handsome on the flute’ is undoubtedly bad English. We sometimes qualify persons, but never things, as ‘clever.’ A ‘clever’ boy, or a ‘clever’ man, &c., but never, as in America, a ‘clever’ house or a ‘clever’ cargo. Again, in America a very common use of ‘to fix’ is ‘to prepare,’ or ‘put in order.’ This is not sanctioned by English usage. But ‘a fix,’ in the sense of a dilemma or predicament, is condemned by literary men in the United States as a vulgarism.

The other class consists of words wholly unrecognised in English in any sense—in fine, genuine Americanisms; such words as ‘secesh,’ ‘skedaddle,’ ‘recuperate,’ ‘rowdy,’ ‘rile,’ ‘stampede,’ &c., which can in no sense be said to belong to our language. Nor is it likely that English writers of any pretensions to good taste will ever adopt them. The Americans call the English ‘Britishers;’ to tease or vex anyone is, with them, ‘to rile’ him; to make a set speech is to ‘orate;’ a sudden panic and flight of soldiers is a ‘stampede,’ &c. There are other words of this class which it would puzzle most English writers to explain; such as ‘slick,’ ‘spry,’ ‘kedge,’ ‘boss,’ ‘absquatulate,’ &c. These are not English words, and we may pretty confidently predict that they will never become English.

There can be little doubt, however, that certain expressions now known as Americanisms were, at one time, very commonly used in English. Madame D’Arblay, as well as other writers of her time, has, over and over again, ‘mighty fine,’ ‘mighty pretty,’ &c. ‘Mighty pretty’ is exactly on a par with ‘uncommon nice.’ The one is just as incorrect as the other. This is a form of expression continually used by American writers. Forty or fifty years ago the adjective ‘rare’ was commonly used for ‘underdone’ (meat). Now, though common enough in the United States, it is seldom, if ever, applied by us in that sense. Some of these peculiarities appear to be making way in English, in spite of our struggles against them. Such are ‘to progress’ for ‘to advance,’ ‘to effectuate’ for ‘to accomplish,’ ‘right off,’ or ‘right away,’ for ‘at once’ or ‘immediately,’ ‘laid over’ for ‘put off,’ &c.

The Americans use ‘tiresome’ for ‘tiring;’ they speak of a ‘tiresome’—for a fatiguing—journey. Also a ‘good’ time is used for a ‘pleasant’ time, ‘fall’ for ‘autumn,’ and to ‘go-a-head’ for ‘to prosper.’ One American word which seems likely to establish itself in the English language is, ‘a loafer.’ This would seem to be derived from the German ‘laufen,’ to run, though it has not that meaning in the United States, where it signifies one who lounges about lazily.

In America many new terms are the offspring of a political excitement, which is sure to occur every four years, i.e. as often as a new President is elected. On these occasions such words as ‘Copperheads,’ ‘Ring-tailed Roarers,’ ‘Know-nothings,’ ‘Fenians,’ ‘Wolverines,’ &c., &c., are sure to make their appearance. These words may have a meaning for those who invent and use them, but to the great majority of Englishmen they are altogether a mystery.

Language, in the hands of a great poet, has been often called ‘a flame of fire.’ However this may be, in the hands of certain American journalists it does seem, now and then, very likely to burn their own fingers. In the New York papers we meet with the verb ‘to concertize,’ which may possibly mean to give a succession of concerts. We remember hearing that process once called ‘going about matinéeing!’ And there is quite as good authority for the one as for the other of these expressions. Another unintelligible phrase, drawn from the same source, is ‘an emergent meeting.’ This word is never used, in modern English, in a concrete sense. We may say an emergent occasion or emergent doubts, but not an emergent candidate or an emergent character. It is possible that the writer meant a meeting called together on an emergency.

The rapid communication established of late years between England and the United States has brought the two nations into a much closer connection with each other. This, in a commercial or a political view, may be of great advantage to both countries. But every advantage has its drawback, and it is very doubtful whether this condition of things is likely to benefit the English language. The Americans are well known to set great store by liberty, and of course we have no right whatever to interfere with their opinions concerning principles or forms of political government. But it becomes a serious matter for us when they think proper to take liberties with our language. They set up for themselves, probably by way of showing their independence, new modes of spelling; and they are perpetually introducing all sorts of meanings, words, and phrases, none of which have the remotest title to be called English. In the writings of the late N. P. Willis, we meet with such terms as the following:—‘An unletupable nature,’ ‘wideawakeity,’ ‘plumptitude,’ ‘pocketually speaking,’ ‘betweenity,’ and ‘go-awayness!’ In the same gentleman’s writings, we occasionally come across such elegant forms of expression as ‘whipping creation,’ ‘flogging Europe,’ ‘a heap of opinions,’ ‘tarnation quick,’ &c. These and all such must be looked upon as abortions or deformities of our language; and no English writer who has any respect for his own reputation should ever think of countenancing, far less of adopting, such monstrosities.