October 1, 1886.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



355 



Americanisms " aa " amiusingly and amazingly inaccurate," 

 oblivious of the fact that in the fii-st article, intended to 

 convey this impression, my critic could point out only one 

 doubtful omission, and two supposed inaccui-acies — really 

 his own. As there are upwards of two hundred words in 

 the first two sections out of four (I have counted no further) 

 which the critic examined with his most unfriendly eye, I 

 maintain that he has really proved the notes to be singidarly 

 accurate, so far at least as his opinion is concerned. Two 

 bad potatoes in a plate may have a bad effect, but two only 

 in four sacksful would have a veiy different significance. 

 And, as I have shown, even the two words " Chowder" and 

 " Bonanza " ai* correctly dealt with by me — the only blun- 

 ders about them being my critic's. 



Thirdly, my critic ventures to coiTect me for using the 

 word " Americanisms " in its wider sense, instead of the 

 absurdly narrow sense he prefers. I might limit my Notes 

 (observe, by the w-ay, how modest the word and how remote 

 from the "glossary" he attributes to mei to "Americanisms 

 made in America by Americans " and " foreign words left 

 by former Spanish, French, and Dutch colonists"; but, on 

 the one hand, I could not justify such a limitation, and, on 

 the other, no one would take any interest in so paltry a 

 collection as would have resulted. 



And now for my critic's special blunders, some of which 

 are amusing and amazing indeed. 



1. Horse-fiddle. This is no more an Americanism than 

 the " charivari " itself. For an English illustration of a noisy 

 serenade, see Hogarth's " Idle and Industrious Apprentices," 

 showing indeed that the custom was not limited of old times 

 in England to purposes of annoyanca The use of the word 

 " horee," as in " horse-laugh," to imply something loud and 

 coai-se, is not American at all. An English rough who 

 made a noise- producing instrument, scraped bow-wise, 

 would be sure to call it a horse-fiddle. But even as to the 

 Ameiican use of the word and of the thing, my critic 

 blunders. He describes the horee-fiddle as known only in 

 Xew England, whereas it is known in every State of the 

 north, the east, and the west. He describes only one form 

 of it, whereas there are half a dozen at least, to my 

 knowledge. He describes only one ase of it, as the bass 

 instrument in a " charivari," whereas it is often used as a 

 convenient calling instrument. In Ohio, for instance, a 

 horse-fiddle is (or was quite recently) used to call men and 

 dogs together for the American form (utterly unlike the 

 English) of a fox hunt. The name is also applied to a coarse 

 kind of ^Eolian harp, in which strings dipped in coal-oil are 

 stretched across a suitable wooden case, a gruesome noise 

 resulting when the instrument is placed where a strong 

 wind can work upon it. 



2. Hailed Mealek. My critic employs much space to 

 explain that a " mealer " is one who takes meals, and that 

 " hauled " means " conveyed in a vehicle." The blunder 

 here consists in the amazing absurdity of supposing that 

 any one wants to know about such Americanisms (save the 

 mark I) as these. A member of my household calls a car- 

 riage dog a " plum-pudding dog." Shall I put that down a.s 

 Missomian American ? Another — veiy young — has in- 

 vented the appropriate aill, " Look at it I look at it 1 " when 

 a masher, a white-chokei-ed coloured man, or any other pre- 

 posterous pei-son appears. Shall I call the quaint cry an 

 Americanism ? I know a case whei-e the word " death " is 

 always used for " a common lot," a-s applied to a "crowd " 

 (as Americans say). Shall that go down, too ? 



3. Time. My critic quotes iSIr. Saintsbury as saying that 

 many may regard the expression, " a glorious time of it," as 

 an Americanism, whereas it is good old English. But it is 

 not even old in the sense of being out of date. The expi-es- 

 sion is constantly used in every part of England. (In 



passing, though, I note that " time " is no longer used in 

 England when its meaning might be understood as in 

 Nicholas Nickleby's well-known retort ; whereas in America 

 there is no such objection to the use of the word, the mean- 

 ing suggested by Mr. Xickleby not having come into use.) 



4. Deck, for pack of cards. My critic carefully insinuates 

 the untruth that I have here "set down as of American 

 origin a word which is in ' Shakespeare.' " I referred to 

 the play, act, and scene where Shakespeare uses the word I 

 His blunder here consists in the feebleness of his suggeslio 



falsi. 



5. Peart. There is a similarly unwise untruth here. 

 Bartlett mentions rightly enough that this word is " pro- 

 vincial in parts of England " (I have repeatedly heard it 

 myself in Devonshire and Cornwall), and even quotes a 

 passage from a letter of Sir Philip Sidney's. (I think 

 Bartlett is mistaken in regarding •' peart " as a corrupt pro- 

 nunciation of '• pert " ; the fact really is that our '' pert," 

 pronounced " purt," is a corrupt pronunciation of " pert," 

 properly pronounced originally like the French word perle. 



' " Peert " and '• peart," as now sounded, are conuptions of 

 j the "pearte" of Sidney's time, when " ea" and other words 

 always represented the sound we retain now only in a few 

 words so spelled — as, for example, " great.") " Pert " was 

 derived from the old French apert, still remaining in 

 niahpert. 



6. Eeckos. "I reckon" for "I think," still used 

 as a provincialism in England. Therefoi-e our Salunlay 

 BevKwer would remove this from among Americanisms. 

 The use of " i-eckon " in this way is only local in America. 

 It belongs to the south, and rather specially to Kentucky. 

 Albeit, neither consideration can properly exclude it from 

 among Americanisms. It belongs, indeed, to the only class 

 of Americanisms really interesting to study, for the evidence 

 they give about old English words and phrases. This again 

 (for a correction on Bartlett) is, as an untruth, emphatioiUj' 

 feeble. Bartlett tells all about the provincial use of the 

 word. In fact, my critic's second paper, by causing me to 

 look somewhat carefully into Bartlett's pages, has greatly 

 raised my respect for his work. He goes wrong about many 

 English provincialisms not found in books, but where there 

 is documentary e^-idence he has nearly always lighted 

 upon it. 



Like for " as." Another weak falsehood here also. 

 Bartlett touches on the English use of this expression. The 

 Saturday Eevieiver puts its English use as out-of-the-way 

 knowledge. I have heard it myself i-epeatedly, especially in 

 Lancashire and Yorkshire, where educated people use it 

 freely. It occurs also commonly enough in books. I 

 differ altogether from Bartlett in regarding this as an 

 Americanism at all, for it is at least as often to be noticed in 

 England as in America. 



Switch. Noun and verb. Here, following Bartlett, 

 the Saturday Revieicer goes grievously wrong. Bartlett says 

 the word is coming into use in England, but describes it as 

 the American for the English "shunt." As a matter of 

 fact, " switch " has been in use in railway-English since 

 i-ailways, and long before locomotives were invented. 

 Thei-e is a real difference, however, in England between 

 " switching " and " shunting " a train, which Ls not gene- 

 rally recognised. A train sent off to another line of rails is 

 said to be " switched off," but a train is properly said to be 

 " shunted " only when it has been switched off for the pur- 

 pose of allowing another train to pass. The term " switch " 

 is general, " shunt " pai-ticular. " Switch " is related to 

 " swing," and " shunt " to " shun." 



Molly Cottox-tail, for a Kibbit. The Saturday 

 Beview critic is for a wonder nearly right as regards this 

 word : it seems not to be in his nature to be quite right. 



