POVERTY OF VOCABULARIES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9070, 10 February 1908, Page 3

POVERTY OF VOCABULARIES.

Xiady Bell (wife of Sir Hugh Bell) writing in the Albany Review, regrets the present condition of our vocabulary, which, she thinks, is gradually dwindling into a povertystricken assemblage of worn and rubbed expressions, that have no more edge left upon them than the water-worn pebbles of the sea-shore. The vocabulary of each one of ns is a most important part of our equipment, and we ought designedly to keep it in the best condition possible. We do not pay enough attention to this particular branch of the of our children. The 'vocaqulary of pur sons, no doubt, is . occasionally ludicrous ; but it reflects |*oor national system of education, land as much receives that official I'stamp of our national pride which ■ entitles..." so. mnay of our limitations ‘to pass muster as advantages. I overheard a conversation at the play the other day which offers some interesting examples of diction. Two well-dressed women sitting in the stalls were discussing a female friend. One said : ‘She .is quite impossible, isn’t she?” Now this expression, to begin with, the purist might condemn : a person can hardly be impossible.—But we will admit this as an abridgement.—Hie other replied," “She is so . .’’and then she left off. And the first said: “She is, you know, she really is.” The second said: “And it isn’t as if.,. ” then she left off again. And the first rejoined : “Exactly.”— That was the end. And in these few melicitious touches they described the character of their friend. The auditorium of a theatre is a fruitful hunting-ground for those who would investigate our verbal resources, and the poverty of onr vocabulary becomes still more apparent when it is a question of discussing a play. If the play has pleased ns we say it is ■“nice”; if it is not, we say it is “rot.” Or if we do not wish to commit ourselves to such "extremes of opinion, our criticism can be subtly differentiated, and we say it is “rather nice” or “rather rot.” Statistics are constantly being given us as to the number of words that various kinds of people are supposed to have in their vocabulary, ranging, I believe, from the peasant who is supposed to have about 300 words, to somebody else —a prince, perhaps?— who has 3000 But many people one hears talking in these days, young people especially, seem to know only sis words, in the way of descriptive epithets at any rate. They know “rot” of course, “rotter” and “rotten”; they know “waster,” and they know “a good sort” and "of the best,” and these subdivisions appear to embrace the whole of mankind.