THE ENGLISH VOICE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 1198, 22 January 1914, Page 2

THE ENGLISH VOICE.

POET LAUREATE TO THE RESCUE. WHY SAY “NEY'CHER” ? A society of scholars is in process of formation for the encouragement of the use ot pure English, both written and spoken. According to the Daily Mail, it is an Oxford movement, and (originally at all events) it will not seek a wide membership. Dr Bridges, the Poet Laureate, is at the head ot i;; and it will have the support of such masters in English as Mr Thomas Hardy, Dr Henry Bradley, and Dr Craigie, editors of the Oxford English Dictionary; Sir Walter Raleigh, Professor of English Literature at Oxford ; and Professor Mackill, some time Professor of Poetry at Oxford. While the objects o! the society have not yet been defined, they will probably include: The publi cation of literature, the delivery of lectures, and an attempt, ultimately. to influence all the teachers of English iu the laud ; the restoration of the purity o( the written and spoken language; a resistance to the unnecessary incorporation of foreign words, aud an encouragement of the adoption in polite speech of crisp, terse, vigorous words from the dialects. The English that Johnson spoke, rather than the English that Johnson wrote, is au object aimed at by many experts. For instance, Johnson would say “rot,” but he would write “putrefy.” TUNE, NOT CHIUNK. Dr Bridges’ views ou pronunciation were expressed in a tract prepared for the English Association. We say, “ueycher” for nature. “Tune” is well ou its way to be pronounced “chiuue.” A professor of English has been heard to say “audjius” for audience. It may be added that one of our most popular platform orators (Oxford himself) says “eweshyuu” for question, aud is sadly addicted to the word. The younger generation say “pawing” for pouring. Fortunately the educated south is learning again that there is au “h” iu “wheel” and “when.” Ireland aud Scotland never forgot it. The new movement is far from being au attack ou provincial speech. “A Londoner will say,” wrote the Poet Laureate in his tract, “that a Scotchman talks strangely aud ill ; the truth is that he himself is in the typical atti tude of vulgar ignorance iu these matters. He is disposed to look down upon ail that he is unaccustomed to, and, not knowing the true distinctions, be esteems bis own degraded custom as correct. I should send foreigners ter Scotland fer their ixpeerierns.”