About this book

The American Language

H. L. Mencken

In the last chapter we glanced at several salient differences between the common coin of English and the common coin of American--that is, the verbs and adjectives in constant colloquial use--the rubber-stamps, so to speak, of the two languages. America has two adverbs that belong to the same category. They are /right/ and /good/. Neither holds the same place in English. Thornton shows that the use of /right/, as in /right away/, /right good/ and /right now/, was already widespread in the United States early in the last century; his first example is dated 1818. He believes that the locution was "possibly imported from the southwest of Ireland." Whatever its origin, it quickly attracted the attention of English visitors. Dickens noted /right away/ as an almost universal Americanism during his first American tour, in 1842, and poked fun at it in the second chapter of "American Notes." /Right/ is used as a synonym for /directly/, as in /right away/, /right off/, /right now/ and /right on time/; for /moderately/, as in /right well/, /right smart/, /right good/ and /right often/, and in place of /precisely/, as in /right there/. Some time ago, in an article on Americanisms, an English critic called it "that most distinctively American word," and concocted the following dialogue to instruct the English in its use: How do I get to----? Go /right/ along, and take the first turning (/sic/) on the /right/, and you are /right/ there. /Right?/ /Right./ /Right!/[43] Like W. L. George, this Englishman failed in his attempt to write correct American despite his fine pedagogical passion. No American would ever say "take the first turning"; he would say "turn at the first corner." As for /right away/, R. O. Williams argues that "so far as analogy can make good English, it is as good as one could choose."[44] Nevertheless, the Oxford Dictionary admits it only as an Americanism, and avoids all mention of the other American uses of /right/ as an adverb. /Good/ is almost as protean. It is not only used as a general synonym for all adjectives and adverbs connoting satisfaction, as in /to feel good/, /to be treated good/, /to sleep good/, but also as a reinforcement to other adjectives and adverbs, as in "I hit him /good/ and hard" and "I am /good/ and tired." Of late /some/ has come into wide use as an adjective-adverb of all work, indicating special excellence or high degree, as in /some girl/, /some sick/, /going some/, etc. It is still below the salt, but threatens to reach a more respectable position. One encounters it in the newspapers constantly and in the /Congressional Record/, and not long ago a writer in the /Atlantic Monthly/[45] hymned it ecstatically as "/some/ word--a true super-word, in fact" and argued that it could be used "in a sense for which there is absolutely no synonym in the dictionary." Basically, it appears to be an adjective, but in many of its common situations the grammarians would probably call it an adverb. It gives no little support to the growing tendency, already noticed, to break down the barrier between the two parts of speech. § 4 /Foreign Influences Today/--No other great nation of today supports so large a foreign population as the United States, [Pg150] either relatively or absolutely; none other contains so many foreigners forced to an effort, often ignorant and ineffective, to master the national language. Since 1820 nearly 35,000,000 immigrants have come into the country, and of them probably not 10,000,000 brought any preliminary acquaintance with English with them. The census of 1910 showed that nearly 1,500,000 persons then living permanently on American soil could not speak it at all; that more than 13,000,000 had been born in other countries, chiefly of different language; and that nearly 20,000,000 were the children of such immigrants, and hence under the influence of their speech habits. Altogether, there were probably at least 25,000,000 whose house language was not the vulgate, and who thus spoke it in competition with some other language. No other country houses so many aliens. In Great Britain the alien population, for a century past, has never been more than 2 per cent of the total population, and since the passage of the Alien Act of 1905 it has tended to decline steadily. In Germany, in 1910, there were but 1,259,873 aliens in a population of more than 60,000,000, and of these nearly a half were German-speaking Austrians and Swiss. In France, in 1906, there were 1,000,000 foreigners in a population of 39,000,000 and a third of them were French-speaking Belgians, Luxembourgeois and Swiss. In Italy, in 1911, there were but 350,000 in a population of 35,000,000. This large and constantly reinforced admixture of foreigners has naturally exerted a constant pressure upon the national language, for the majority of them, at least in the first generation, have found it quite impossible to acquire it in any purity, and even their children have grown up with speech habits differing radically from those of correct English. The effects of this pressure are obviously two-fold; on the one hand the foreigner, struggling with a strange and difficult tongue, makes efforts to simplify it as much as possible, and so strengthens the native tendency to disregard all niceties and complexities, and on the other hand he corrupts it with words and locutions from the language he has brought with him, and sometimes with whole idioms and grammatical forms. We have seen, in earlier chapters, how the [Pg151] Dutch and French of colonial days enriched the vocabulary of the colonists, how the German immigrants of the first half of the nineteenth century enriched it still further, and how the Irish of the same period influenced its everyday usages. The same process is still going on. The Italians, the Slavs, and, above all, the Russian Jews, make steady contributions to the American vocabulary and idiom, and though these contributions are often concealed by quick and complete naturalization their foreignness to English remains none the less obvious. /I should worry/,[46] in its way, is correct English, but in essence it is as completely Yiddish as /kosher/, /ganof/, /schadchen/, /oi-yoi/, /matzoh/ or /mazuma/.[47] /Black-hand/, too, is English in form, but it is nevertheless as plainly an Italian loan-word as /spaghetti/, /mafia/ or /padrone/. The extent of such influences upon American, and particularly upon spoken American, remains to be studied; in the whole literature I can find but one formal article upon the subject. That article[48] deals specifically with the suffix /-fest/, which came into American from the German and was probably suggested by familiarity with /sängerfest/. There is no mention of it in any of the dictionaries of Americanisms, and yet, in such forms as /talk-fest/ and /gabfest/ it is met with almost daily. So with /-heimer/, /-inski/ and /-bund/. Several years ago /-heimer/ had a great vogue in slang, and was rapidly done to death. But /wiseheimer/ remains [Pg152] in colloquial use as a facetious synonym for /smart-aleck/, and after awhile it may gradually acquire dignity. Far lowlier words, in fact, have worked their way in. /Buttinski/, perhaps, is going the same route. As for the words in /-bund/, many of them are already almost accepted. /Plunder-bund/ is now at least as good as /pork-barrel/ and /slush-fund/, and /money-bund/ is frequently heard in Congress.[49] Such locutions creep in stealthily, and are secure before they are suspected. Current slang, out of which the more decorous language dredges a large part of its raw materials, is full of them. /Nix/ and /nixy/, for /no/, are debased forms of the German /nichts/; /aber nit/, once as popular as /camouflage/, is obviously /aber nicht/. And a steady flow of nouns, all needed to designate objects introduced by immigrants, enriches the vocabulary. The Hungarians not only brought their national condiment with them; they also brought its name, /paprika/, and that name is now thoroughly American.[50] In the same way the Italians brought in /camorra/, /padrone/, /spaghetti/ and a score of other substantives, and the Jews made contributions from Yiddish and Hebrew and greatly reinforced certain old borrowings from German. Once such a loan-word gets in it takes firm root. During the first year of American participation in the World War an effort was made, on patriotic grounds, to substitute /liberty-cabbage/ for /sour-kraut/, but it quickly failed, for the name had become as completely Americanized as the thing itself, and so /liberty-cabbage/ seemed affected and absurd. In the same way a great many other German words survived the passions of the time. Nor could all the influence of the professional patriots obliterate that German influence which has fastened upon the American /yes/ something of the quality of /ja/. Constant familiarity with such contributions from foreign languages and with the general speech habits of foreign peoples has made American a good deal more hospitable to loan-words than English, even in the absence of special pressure. Let the same [Pg153] word knock at the gates of the two languages, and American will admit it more readily, and give it at once a wider and more intimate currency. Examples are afforded by /café/, /vaudeville/, /employé/, /boulevard/, /cabaret/, /toilette/, /exposé/, /kindergarten/, /dépôt/, /fête/ and /menu/. /Café/, in American, is a word of much larger and more varied meaning than in English and is used much more frequently, and by many more persons. So is /employé/, in the naturalized form of /employee/. So is /toilet/: we have even seen it as a euphemism for native terms that otherwise would be in daily use. So is /kindergarten/: I read lately of a /kindergarten/ for the elementary instruction of conscripts. Such words are not unknown to the Englishman, but when he uses them it is with a plain sense of their foreignness. In American they are completely naturalized, as is shown by the spelling and pronunciation of most of them. An American would no more think of attempting the French pronunciation of /depot/ or of putting the French accents upon it than he would think of spelling /toilet/ with the final /te/ or of essaying to pronounce /Anheuser/ in the German manner. Often curious battles go on between such loan-words and their English equivalents, and with varying fortunes. In 1895 Weber and Fields tried to establish /music-hall/ in New York, but it quickly succumbed to /vaudeville-theatre/, as /variety/ had succumbed to /vaudeville/ before it. In the same way /lawn-fete/ (without the circumflex accent, and commonly pronounced /feet/) has elbowed out the English /garden-party/. But now and then, when the competing loan-word happens to violate American speech habits, a native term ousts it. The French /crèche/ offers an example; it has been entirely displaced by /day-nursery/. The English, in this matter, display their greater conservatism very plainly. Even when a loan-word enters both English and American simultaneously a sense of foreignness lingers about it on the other side of the Atlantic much longer than on this side, and it is used with far more self-consciousness. The word /matinée/ offers a convenient example. To this day the English commonly print it in italics, give it its French accent, and pronounce it with some attempt at the French manner. But in America it is entirely naturalized, and the most ignorant man [Pg154] uses it without any feeling that it is strange. The same lack of any sense of linguistic integrity is to be noticed in many other directions--for example, in the freedom with which the Latin /per/ is used with native nouns. One constantly sees