The English Language Part 105

_Z_ for _s_--_zee_ for _see_,--Devonshire.

_S_ for _sh_--_sall_ for _shall_,--Craven, Scotland.

_Y_ for _g_--_yet_ for _gate_,--Yorkshire, Scotland.

_W_ for _v_--_wiew_ for _view_,--Ess.e.x, London.

_N_ for _ng_--_bleedin_ for _bleeding_,--c.u.mberland, Scotland.

_Sk_ for _sh_--_busk_ for _bush_,--Halifax.

_Ejection of Letters._

_K_ before _s_, the preceding vowel being lengthened by way of compensation--_neist_ for _next_, _seist_ for _sixth_,--Halifax.

_D_ and _v_ after a consonant--_gol_ for _gold_, _siller_ for _silver_,--Suffolk. The ejection of _f_ is rarer; _mysel_ for _myself_, however, occurs in most dialects.

_L_ final, after a short vowel,--in which case the vowel is lengthened--_poo_ for _pull_,--Cheshire, Scotland.

_Al_ changed to _a_ open--_hawf_ for _half_, _saumo_n for _salmon_,--c.u.mberland, Scotland.

_Transposition._

Transpositions of the liquid _r_ are common in all our provincial dialects; as _gars_, _brid_, _perty_, for _gra.s.s_, _bird_, _pretty_. Here the provincial forms are the oldest, _gaers_, _brid_, &c., being the Anglo-Saxon forms. Again; _acsian_, Anglo-Saxon=_ask_, English.

-- 687. _Ancient forms of speech._--In the way of grammar--

1. The _ge-_ (see -- 409), prefixed to the past participle (_ge-boren_=_borne_) is, in certain localities,[73] omitted.

{538}

2. The present[74] plural form _-s_, encroaches upon the form in _-n_.

Thus, _munuces_=_munucan_=_monks_.

3. The infinitive ends in _-a_, instead of _-an_. This is Scandinavian, but it is also Frisian.

4. The particle _at_ is used instead of _to_ before the infinitive verb.

5. The article[74] _the_ is used instead of _se_, _seo_, _aet_=[Greek: ho, he, to], for both the numbers, and all the cases and genders.

6. The form in _-s_ (_use_, _usse_) replaces _ure_=_our_.

In the way of sound--

1. Forms with the slenderer, or more vocalic[74] sounds, replace forms which in the West-Saxon are broad or diphthongal.[75] Beda mentions that _Coelin_ is the Northumbrian form of _Ceawlin_.

2. The simple[74] sound of _k_ replaces the combination out of which the modern sound of _ch_ has been evolved.

3. The sound of _sk_ replaces either the _sh_, or the sound out of which it has been evolved.

The meaning of these last two statements is explained by the following extract: "Another characteristic is the infusion of Scandinavian words, of which there are slight traces in monuments of the tenth century, and strong and unequivocal ones in those of the thirteenth and fourteenth. Some of the above criteria may be verified by a simple and obvious process, namely, a reference to the topographical nomenclature of our provinces. Whoever takes the trouble to consult the Gazetteer of England will find, that of our numerous 'Carltons' not one is to be met with south of the Mersey, west of the Staffordshire Tame, or south of the Thames; and that 'Fiskertons,'

'Skiptons,' 'Skelbrookes,' and a whole host of similar names are equally _introuvables_ in the same district. They are, with scarcely a single exception, northern or eastern; and we know from aelfric's Glossary, from Domesday and the Chartularies, that this distinction of p.r.o.nunciation was established as early as the eleventh century. 'Kirby' or 'Kirkby,' is a specimen of joint Anglian and {539} Scandinavian influence, furnishing a clue to the ethnology of the district wherever it occurs. The converse of this rule does not hold with equal universality, various causes having gradually introduced soft palatal sounds into districts to which they did not properly belong. Such are, however, of very partial occurrence, and form the exception rather than the rule."--_Quarterly Review_, No. CLXIV.

_Bibliographical preliminaries._--The leading facts here are the difference between 1. the locality of the authorship, and 2, the locality of the transcription of a book.

Thus: the composition of a Devonshire poet may find readers in Northumberland, and his work be transcribed by Northumbrian copyist. Now this Northumbrian copyist may do one of two things: he may transcribe the Devonian production _verbatim et literatim_; in which case his countrymen read the MS. just as a Londoner reads Burns, _i.e._, in the dialect of the writer, and not in the dialect of the reader. On the other hand, he may _accommodate_ as well as transcribe, _i.e._, he may change the _non_-Northumbrian into Northumbrian expressions, in which case his countrymen read the MS. in their own rather than the writer's dialect.

Now it is clear, that in a literature where transcription, _combined with accommodation_, is as common as _simple_ transcription, we are never sure of knowing the dialect of an author unless we also know the dialect of his transcriber. In no literature is there more of this _semi_-translation than in the Anglo-Saxon and the early English; a fact which sometimes raises difficulties, by disconnecting the evidence of authorship with the otherwise natural inferences as to the dialect employed; whilst, at others, it smoothes them away by supplying as many specimens of fresh dialects, as there are extant MSS. of an often copied composition.

Inquiring whether certain peculiarities of dialect in Layamon's Brut, really emanated from the author, a writer in the Quarterly Review, (No.

clxiv.) remarks, that to decide this it "would be necessary to have access either to the priest's autograph, or to a more faithful copy of it than it was the practice to make either in his age or the succeeding {540} ones. A transcriber of an early English composition followed his own ideas of language, grammar, and orthography; and if he did not entirely obliterate the characteristic peculiarities of his original, he was pretty sure, like the Conde de Olivares, 'd'y meter beaucour du sein.' The practical proof of this is to be found in the existing copies of those works, almost every one of which exhibits some peculiarity of features. We have 'Trevisa' and 'Robert of Gloucester,' in two distinct forms--'Pier's Ploughman,' in at least three, and 'Hampole's p.r.i.c.ke of Conscience,' in half a dozen, without any absolute certainty which approximates most to what the authors wrote.

With regard to Layamon, it might be supposed that the older copy is the more likely to represent the original; but we have internal evidence that it is not the priest's autograph; and it is impossible to know what alterations it may have undergone in the course of one or more transcriptions."

Again, in noticing the orthography of the Ormulum (alluded to in the present volume, -- 266), he writes: "It is true that in this instance we have the rare advantage of possessing the author's autograph, a circ.u.mstance which cannot with confidence be predicated of any other considerable work of the same period. The author was, moreover, as Mr.

Thorpe observes, a kind of critic in his own language; and we therefore find in his work, a regularity of orthography, grammar, and metre, hardly to be paralleled in the same age. All this might, in a great measure, disappear in the very next copy; for fidelity of transcription was no virtue of the thirteenth or the fourteenth century; at least with respect to vernacular works. It becomes, therefore, in many cases a problem of no small complication, to decide with certainty respecting the original metre, or language, of a given mediaeval composition, with such data as we now possess."

From all this it follows, that the inquirer must talk of _copies_ rather than of _authors_.

-- 688. _Caution._--Differences of spelling do not always imply differences of p.r.o.nunciation; perhaps they may be _prima facie_ of such. Still it is uncritical to be over-hasty in {541} separating, as specimens of _dialect_, works which, perhaps, only differ in being specimens of separate _orthographies_.

-- 689. _Caution._--The accommodation of a transcribed work is susceptible of _degrees_. It may go so far as absolutely to replace one dialect by another, or it may go no farther than the omission of the more unintelligible expressions, and the subst.i.tution of others more familiar. I again quote the Quarterly Review,--"There are very few matters more difficult than to determine _a priori_, in what precise form a vernacular composition of the thirteenth century might be written, or what form it might a.s.sume in a very short period. Among the Anglo-Saxon charters of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, many are modelled upon the literary Anglo-Saxon, with a few slight changes of orthography and inflection; while others abound with dialectical peculiarities of various sorts. Those peculiarities may generally be accounted for from local causes. An East-Anglian scribe does not employ broad western forms, nor a West of England man East-Anglian ones; though each might keep his provincial peculiarities out of sight, and produce something not materially different from the language of aelfric."

-- 690. _Caution._--In the Reeve's Tale, Chaucer puts into the mouth of one of his north-country clerks, a native of the Strother, in the north-west part of the deanery of Craven, where the Northumbrian dialect rather preponderates over the Anglian, certain Yorkshire glosses. "Chaucer[76]

undoubtedly copied the language of some native; and the general accuracy, with which he gives it, shows that he was an attentive observer of all that pa.s.sed around him.

"We subjoin an extract from the poem, in order to give our readers an opportunity of comparing southern and northern English, as they co-existed in the fifteenth century. It is from a MS. that has never been collated; but which we believe to be well worthy the attention of any future editor of the Canterbury Tales. The italics denote variations from the printed text:--

{542}

"John highte that oon and Aleyn highte that other: Of _oo_ toun were thei born that highte Strother, Ffer in the north I can not tellen where.

This Aleyn maketh redy al his gere-- And on an hors the sak he caste anoon.

Fforth goth Aleyn the clerk and also John, With good swerde and bokeler by his side.

John knewe the weye--hym nedes no gide; And atte melle the sak a down he layth.

Aleyn spak first: Al heyle, Symond--in fayth-- How fares thi fayre daughter and thi wyf?

Aleyn welcome--quod Symkyn--be my lyf-- And John also--how now, what do ye here?

By G.o.d, quod John--Symond, nede has _na_ pere.

Hym bihoves _to_ serve him self that has na swayn; Or _ellis_ he is a fool as clerkes sayn.

Oure maunciple I hope he wil be ded-- Swa _werkes hym_ ay the w.a.n.ges in his heed.

And therefore is I come and eek Aleyn-- To grynde oure corn, and carye it _ham_ agayne, I pray yow _spedes_[77] us _hethen_ that ye may.

It shal be done, quod Symkyn, by my fay!

What wol ye done while it is in hande?

By G.o.d, right by the hoper wol I stande, Quod John, and see _how gates_ the corn gas inne; _Yit_ saugh I never, by my fader kynne, How that the hoper wagges til and fra!

Aleyn answerde--John wil _ye_ swa?

Than wil I be bynethe, by my crown, And se _how gates_ the mele falles down In til the trough--that sal be my disport.

_Quod John_--In faith, I is of youre sort-- I is as ille a meller as _are_ ye.

And when the mele is sakked and ybounde, This John goth out and fynt his hors away-- And gan to crie, harow, and wele away!-- Our hors is lost--Aleyn, for G.o.dde's banes, Stepe on thi feet--come of man attanes!

Allas, oure wardeyn has his palfrey lorn!

This Aleyn al forgat bothe mele and corn-- {543} Al was out of his mynde, his housbonderie.