Part 1

SLANG AND CANT IN JEROME K. JEROME’S WORKS

A STUDY

BY OLOF E. BOSSON

CAMBRIDGE W. HEFFER & SONS, LTD. 1911

LUND 1911 PRINTED BY HÅKAN OHLSSON

Contents.

Preface 5

Bibliography: Chronological list of Jerome K. Jerome’s Works 8

Introduction 9

A Grammatical Survey 17

I. Phonetic Notes 19

II. Accidence 22

III. Syntax 26

Slang 31

Slang > Colloquial English 37

Vulgarism or Cant 45

Vulgarism > Colloquial English 67

Index 79

Preface.

The object of this essay is to examine _vulgarism_ and _slang_ in the works of JEROME K. JEROME (b. 1859).

JEROME gives us very good specimens of the ordinary language of the Victorian era. His style is not surprisingly original, but he shows a remarkable talent in rendering with perfect accuracy the characteristic talk of different classes of society. The persons he introduces to us need only utter a few words, before we are able to form a conception of their social position, their degree of culture, etc.; very often we get in this manner a clue also to their character. The author has led an exceptionally varied life—in his early years he was at different times a clerk, a teacher, an actor, a journalist. He had, accordingly, frequent opportunities of communicating with individuals of different social position and different culture, and of studying their language. He does not aim at grammatical peculiarities, elaborate phrases, or rare expressions; his language is the average language of his own time, acutely observed and faithfully rendered. Giving us thus a true and varied image of the talk of different classes and trades, his writings are specially suited to form the material for a study of _slang_ and _cant_.

Concerning a subject so changeable as cant and slang, it is evidently of importance to know the acceptation of every expression at every period of the development of the language. As a matter of course, therefore, I have tried to discover, in the language of our author, the exact shade of sense of the different slang and cant-expressions, especially in cases where it does not coincide with the common usage, or where it concerns rare expressions.

In order to contribute to the knowledge of the prevalence of the cant and slang-expressions, I have tried to indicate the social position, the sex, the degree of culture, etc., of the persons speaking; and, as far as possible, I have ascertained the history and etymology of my expressions, though, in this respect, my efforts have often been without success.

A rather difficult point has been the classification of the expressions. The question whether a term may be regarded as vulgar or slang, or merely colloquial, is, in many cases, very debateable, as the opinions even of qualified judges concerning this matter are often divergent. In such cases, I have endeavoured to find a medium, founding my statements on the authority of cultivated Englishmen.

A number of original cant and slang-expressions have, _to a certain degree_, penetrated into the colloquial speech of the cultivated, holding thus an intermediate position between cant or slang on one side, and colloquial language on the other: these terms have been treated as special groups _vulgar_ > _colloquial_ and _slang_ > _colloquial_.

I take the opportunity to express my sincere thanks to the University-Lecturer, Mr. CHARLES SCOTT FEARENSIDE, whose valuable assistance has been of great use to me throughout the course of my researches.

I also beg to express my gratitude to Mr. SIDNEY CHARLESTON, University-Lecturer in Upsala, and to Mrs. GERTRUDE FAHLSTRÖM, née PICKERING.

Lund, October 6th, 1910.

_Olof Bosson._

Bibliography.

In the following list of Jerome’s books, T. E. means «Tauchnitz Edition», E. L. «The English Library».

_Year of first publication._ 1885. On The Stage And Off (Field & T.) 1886. Idle Thoughts Of An Idle Fellow (Field & T.) 1889. Stage Land (Chatto & Windus.) 1889. Three Men In A Boat (E. L.) 1890. Told After Supper (Field & T.) 1891. Diary Of A Pilgrimage (T. E.) 1893. John Ingerfield (McLure.) 1893. Novel Notes (T. E.) 1897. Sketches In Lavender, Blue And Green (T. E.) 1897. Humours Of Cycling (Chatto.) 1898. Second Thoughts Of An Idle Fellow (Hurst.) 1900. Three Men On The Bummel (T. E.) 1902. Paul Kelver. I, II. (T. E.) 1903. Tea Table Talk and the Observations of Henry (T. E.) [Here Cited As T. T. T.] 1904. Tommy And Co. (T. E.) 1905. Idle Ideas In 1905 (Hurst.) 1907. The Passing Of The Third Floor Back (T. E.) 1908. The Angel And The Author (Hurst & Co.) 1909. They And I (T. E.)

_Plays_

Miss Hobbs (Messrs. Samuel French, Ltd.) Woodbarrow Farm ( » » » » ) Prude’s Progress (French’s Acting Ed.) Barbara ( » » ) Sunset ( » » ) Fennel ( » » )

Introduction.

During the last years, a conspicuous interest—not only on the part of philologists—has been devoted to that strange outgrowth of language which prospers and develops, unrestricted by all literary traditions, in the easy, natural talk of uncultivated people and of certain groups and trades. This special language is, indeed, of real interest, and its study is of importance, not only as a matter of curiosity.

The philologist has here ample scope for observations of different kinds.

In the language of the uneducated ‘vulgus’, he will often meet with the first traces of an evolution which the literary and cultivated language will have to pass through in the future; on the other hand, he will recognize old forms and obsolete constructions which have passed out of use in the language of the cultivated. Concerning the development of the sense of words, as well as phonetic development, he will be able to make observations of great interest.

In this special language _literature_ has at its disposal an ever-flowing source of renewal.

It is supplied with an abundance of picturesque, amusing, and characteristic words, of surprising and original expressions, of terms constituting a spontaneous and striking manifestation of the speaker’s thought at a certain moment. Every individual being allowed to speak his own natural language, character-drawing gains in veracity, literary description in freshness and variety.

In one of Jerome’s books (Paul Kelver, Vol. II. p. 208. l. 14), we come across the following little dialogue:

»The wonderful songs that nobody ever sings, the wonderful pictures that nobody ever paints, and all the rest of it. It’s _Tommy rot_!»

»I wish you wouldn’t use _slang_.»

»Well, you know what I mean. What is the proper word? Give it me.»

»I suppose you mean ‘cant’», I suggested. »No, I don’t. Cant is something that you don’t believe in yourself. It’s ‘_Tommy rot_’; there isn’t any other word.»

The young lady who makes the above remark is quite right. There are many words in the English language that say _about_ the same, but there is not a single word in the ‘normal’, literary language, that tells us exactly what she wants to get said; not another word forming a concise expression of her thought, and giving us at the same time a clue to her character.

Quite naturally, modern literature has made ample use of this »vulgar» language, and, at the same time, the philologists have striven to investigate its resources. Thus, France possesses about half a dozen _Dictionnaires d’Argot_, and the English-speaking world has at its disposal about the same number of modern _Slang_ and _Cant Dictionaries_. Linguistic studies and essays treating this subject are as yet rather few, but no doubt they will appear in greater number in the future.

No other literature has been influenced by this language to such an extent as the English. In Great Britain, there have been no _Academy_, no »_salons littéraires_», fettering and regulating the literary language. Being allowed to develop itself in perfect liberty, it has gathered its method of expression from different ranges of language and society. Ever since the days of Shakespeare, English authors have made ample use of the easy every-day language of the lower classes; and, from the beginning of the 15th century, a rich, independent literature of slang and vulgar tongue has been developing[1]. Modern English realists have attained a real virtuosity in rendering with almost photographic, or rather phonographic, accuracy the talk of different classes and individuals. It may be truly said that it is impossible to acquire a thorough knowledge of English without being familiar with slang and vulgarism. Whoever is uninitiated into this special language will be at a loss to understand many of the masterpieces of English literature. Nay, without any knowledge of it, he will scarcely be able even to understand an English paper.

»If you will allow me the use of slang» is a phrase often heard in English conversation; but in reality a considerable number of original slang and cant expressions are used without any special permission—often without the speaker’s knowing it. There is—as in all languages, and in English much more than in any other—a constant flow from »low class» into »high class» language. A word or an expression, having been long in use exclusively among the working classes, or in the easy talk of certain trades, gradually penetrates into the colloquial speech of the cultivated—sometimes with a slight change of the sense—and suddenly appears one day in refined literary language. In actual English, there are many such expressions, originating partly from cant, partly from slang[2].

Now, what is _slang_, and what is _cant_?

When the average Englishman employs the word »slang», he usually means all that he does not regard as »correct» English, all that sounds to his ears more or less vulgar. In reality, a certain confusion seems to have been long prevailing in English conception and English literature concerning »flash» and »cant» (vulgarism) on one side, and »slang» on the other[3].

By =slang=, I mean _the easy, natural, semi-technical language of special classes of society_.

In English, as well as in most other languages, there are a great many terms and expressions which are chiefly used in certain trades and professions, and which are often unintelligible to outsiders. Such terms, for instance, are _pater_, _mater_ (father, mother), to be _plucked_ or _ploughed_ (to be rejected in an examination), _tuck_ (sweetstuff), _swot_ (study hard), _slack_ (the contrary of the last-named), _coach_ (private tutor), etc., all in common use among schoolboys. Many of them, such as _chum_, _chummy_, _cheek_, _jaw_ (chatter), _spoon_ (make love), _bunk_ (run away, escape), etc., have exceeded their original sphere and encroached upon common, colloquial language. Among the most important categories of slang, the following may be mentioned: _student-_, _schoolboy-_, _military-_, _commercial-_ and _sporting-slang_. The political world, Parliament, the printing-offices, the stage, nay, even the Church, give their tributes to the vocabulary of slang. The slang-terms are mostly common to all individuals of the same class, but occasionally they differ. Thus, two universities, or even two neighbouring schools, sometimes use different semi-technical terms to express the same idea.

By =cant= or =vulgarism= (low-slang) I mean _the easy, natural language of the uneducated people_.

Originally, _cant_ signified the _secret language_, used by the vagrant classes, the »Canting Crew»—gipsies, thieves, beggars, highwaymen, etc. But, in the course of time, the word has become a general, half-contemptuous name for the special phraseology and vocabulary of the lower classes. _Cant_ is the native tongue of _Seven Dials_ and _Whitechapel_, of _Wapping_ and _St. Giles_, of _Clare Market_ and _East India Docks_, generally speaking, of the suburbs and slums of English towns—of all places where »the Rough», the uncultivated individual of the lower classes, has his whereabouts. The labourer generally intermingles his talk more or less with _cant_. It is the jargon of the _Street Arabs_ (the London street-boys), the _Costers_, the _Bookmakers_, the _Hooligans_ (the »Apaches» of London), the _Cheap Jacks_, the _Newspaper Boys_, the _Shoeblack Brigade_, etc., etc. The colloquial language of the cultivated is mixed up with cant-expressions, the amount depending on the individual’s social position, his sex, his age, etc. Even literary language now and then borrows a term or a phrase from _cant_. Words such as _cad_, _pal_, _rum_, _row_, _cove_, etc., are nowadays understood in refined society, and are generally used in colloquial language.

The centre and starting-point of _cant_ has always been London—»Rom Vile», the marvellous city—and the vagrant people, assembled thither from all parts of the Empire and of the world, have joined in creating its vocabulary.

Its cosmopolitan character makes it a very difficult task to search into its etymological sources, all the more so, as the words and phrases have regularly become more or less altered on their being transplanted into English soil. The cleverest etymologists are here often non-plussed, and, in most cases, we must content ourselves with conjectures. Quite naturally, the main part of its vocabulary consists of _Anglo-Saxon_ words, usually badly maimed. The mysterious Gipsy language, _Romany_, as yet but imperfectly investigated, has furnished a considerable number of old cant-terms. Such words are, for instance, _pal_, _row_, _cove_, _rum_ or _rom_, _shindy_, all original cant-terms, but now partly colloquial[4]. In _French_ originate, e. g., the old cant-word _vile_ (town), _cropoh_ (= crapaud, nick-name for a Frenchman), _savey_ (to know), _bean_ (a generic term for money; bien), _quandary_ (qu’en dirai-je? embarrassment), _dace_ or _duce_ (deux: a twopenny-piece); in _German_: _frow_ (Frau), _kinchen_ (Kindchen), _nix_ (nichts), _gilt_ (old cant for money), _finuf_ (a five-pound-note: fünf); in _Italian_: _case_ (house); _nantee_ (niente: nothing), _letty_ (letto: bedstead), _bene_ (as in _bene darkmans_: good night!); in _Dutch_: _booze_ (buysen: to drink), _bloke_ (blok?: man); in _Latin_: _max_ (maximum?: gin), _panum_ or _panam_ (old cant for _bread_), _nincom_ or _ninny_ (non compos mentis: simpleton), _quid_ (sovereign); in _Hebrew_: _shickster_ (girl; Hebr. chackets?), _schofel_ (name for a hansom-cab), etc.[5].

Especially during the last decades, America has strongly influenced the development of the English language. _Americanisms_ are to be found in great number both in colloquial English, and also in slang and cant.

The _grammar_, as well as the _phonology_, of _cant_ differs in many respects from that of the literary language.

Analogy plays an important rôle, and the anomalisms and divergencies are often of the same nature as those found in the language of children. The inflection is, accordingly, very much simplified, but, on the other hand, vulgar language has preserved several old forms which do not exist in the speech of the cultivated.

The best way to study Cant and Slang is, of course, to listen to the speaking individual himself. But, for several reasons, this must, as a rule, be left to natural-born Englishmen. Another way is to study literature, especially the English and American humorists.

Whoever has tried to make himself at home in this special branch of English literature has undoubtedly had some reason to complain of the insufficiency of the philological aids within his reach. He will often search in vain for the information he wants in the most detailed grammars; the dictionaries of slang and cant may stand him in good stead, but they are all insufficient, and they do not always agree with one another; in particular, their classification is very inconsistent and often erroneous. On the whole, it may be truly stated that this important part of the English language is, as yet, but imperfectly investigated.

A GRAMMATICAL SURVEY

I. A Few Phonetic Notes.

As regards phonetics, Jerome’s language shows us the usual characteristic alterations and abbreviations of vulgar speech.

The uncultivated individual instantly and invariably unmasks himself by dropping his »_h_’s», however he may struggle to avoid it. On the other hand, an _h_ not existing in ordinary pronunciation, is sometimes heard _before a vowel_, especially in _pathetic_ speech.

_Heven_ money on the Purple _Hemperor_! (Three Men On The Bummel, 74. 10.)

The lean girl said she had »erd on me». The fat girl remarked genteelly that she too had »heard _h_of me». with _emphasis_ upon the »hof». (P. Kelver II. 68. 6.)

A man’s wife orter be to ’im a gawdess, a _h_angel, a — —. (Novel Notes 212. 31.)

Mar is quite _h_anxious to see you. (P. Kelver II. 64. 30.)

Thank you, I don’t _h_eat cocoanuts that have been shied at by anybody. (P. Kelver II. 64. 16.)

Another characteristic of non-culture, often ridiculed in comic papers, is the pronunciation of _u_:

_dooty_ instead of duty. (Novel Notes 52. 10.) _amatoor_ » » amateur. (Tea Table Talk 163. 9.) _dook_ » » duke. ( » » » 136. 18.) _menoo_ » » menu. ( » » » 126. 12.) _soot_ » » suit. (Tommy and Co. 38. 26.) _literatoor_ » » literature. (T. T. T. 158. 22.) Etc.

An _r_, consisting of a scarcely perceptible vibration of the tip of the tongue (named _vanish-r_ by ELLIS), is often heard in words and combinations where it does not exist in ordinary pronunciation. In some cases, it seems to be used to avoid a hiatus, in others, it is evidently the effect of an exaggerated palatal pronunciation of the vowel.

_droaring-room_: drawing-room (P. Kelver II. 65. 30.) _oughter ave_: ought to have (Sketches 195. 12.) _arter_: after (Novel Notes 205. 7.) _arf_: half ( » » 204. 4.) _arst_: asked ( » » 212. 6.) _follered_: followed ( » » 213. 5.) _carn’t_: can’t ( » » 204. 3.)

A long vowel is often abbreviated: _weskit_ for ‘waistcoat’, _gal_, _gel_ for ‘girl’, _dunno_ for ‘don’t know’, _agin_ for ‘again’, etc.; while, on the other hand, a short vowel (esp. o) is sometimes lengthened: _dawg_ for ‘dog’, _gawd_ for ‘god’ (Novel Notes 212).

(The same pron. of short _o_ exists in the Essex dialect.)

In vulgar London speech, _w_ is sometimes heard instead of _v_. Jerome’s language offers, however, but one sample: _wiolets_ (T. T. T. 137. 5.)

(The pronunciation of _w_ as _v_, Veller for Weller, etc. is said to be extinct in modern vulgar English.)

The _g_ in words ending with _-ing_, esp. the _present participle_, is mostly _mute_ in vulgar pronunciation.

_bloomin’_ (Novel Notes 203. 9). _mornin’_ ( » » 204. 20). _sendin’_ } (P. Kelver 65. 19). _thinkin’_ } _cracklin’_ ( » » II. 71. 4). _sellin’_ ( » » II. 58. 9). Etc.

This pronunciation of the participle is, however, rather an _archaism_. _Sendin’_. etc., is the ancient, dialectic pronunciation, and is not exclusively characteristic of vulgar language. Our author tells us that it has been—and is perhaps at present—_the fashion_ among certain circles of the capital: «He suppressed a yawn, and replied, _‘Mornin’_ dropping the g. The custom was just coming into _fashion_; he was always correct». (Sketches 51. 9.)

_Blasé Billy._

Other anomalisms are: _sich_ for such, _hisself_ for himself, _forarther_ for further (T. T. T. 247. 12), _allus_ for always, _mar_ for mother (P. Kelver II. 64. 30), _oss_ for horse (Sketches 195. 20).

II. Accidence.

Anomalisms in the Conjugation of the Verbs.

The effect of analogy is obvious in the following examples.

I suggests (T. T. T. 159). I answers ( » 170). They sits ( » 125). I comes ( » 126). You comes ( » 125). I says ( » 133). I asks ( » 143). I likes (Sketches 194). I thinks ( » 201). I does (Sketches 194). She don’t ( » 194). ’E don’t ( » 199). Things as gets lost (T. T. T. 195). They wasn’t ( » 136). There’s no wages ( » 228). It don’t ( » 251). One don’t ( » 218). It aren’t (Novel Notes 163).

_Past._

I see = I saw (T. T. T. 197). » » (Three Men In A Boat 81).

(The common anomalous form _I seed_ is not to be found in Jerome.)

I give = I gave (Sketches 201). I gived = » (Novel Notes 155). I win = I won (Tommy And Co. 99). I comed = I came (Woodb. Farm 56).

_Perfect Participle._

Took = taken (T. T. T. 197 + 201 + 140). writ = written ( » 158).

_Present Participle._

The Present Participles preceded by a pleonastic _-a_ are very numerous.

a-coming (T. T. T. 133). a-pecking ( » 141). a-siffing ( » » ). a-going (Sketches 196). a-collecting ( » 200). a-blowing (Three Men On The Bummel 18). Etc., etc.

_To Be._

_It wur_ instead of _it was_ is _dialectic_ or _vulgar_. The samples I have found in Jerome (Three Men in a Boat 221, Woodb. Farm 8 + 10 + 56) are obviously all dialectic.

The uncommon form _warn’t_ instead of _wasn’t_ occurs in Woodb. Farm (p. 8, 1), but is evidently also dialectic.

Of the common anomalous form _they’s_ instead of _they are_ there is no example in Jerome.

_To Have._

_Have not_ and _has not_ are regularly transformed into _ain’t_.

I _ain’t_ got a bloomin’ sixpence on me. (Sketches 128. 12.)

_’E ain’t_ never been his old self since then. (Sketches 201. 3.) Etc.

(_Ain’t_ = am not, are not, is not, is _colloquial_.)

_Pronouns._

The abbreviated form _’em_ (for _them_, Middle-Engl. _hem_) is very common in Jerome, as in ordinary easy conversation among all classes.

The ordinary confusion of _I_ and _me_ appears in a few instances.

Just as you or _me_ would swear at the missus. (T. T. T. 128. 17.)

In another twenty minutes _me_ and young M. were in the carriage. (T. T. T. 195. 7.)

_Me_ instead of _myself_ is _archaic_, but occurs in vulgar language also.

It is no use fixing _me_ down to any quiet calling. (T. T. T. 172. 12.)

_Uncultivated young man._

_You_ is very often corrupted into _yer_ or _ye_.

I do the tips, _yer_ know. (T. T. T. 131. 20.)

Any man could look at _ye_ and hate _ye_. (P. Kelver 32. 11.) Etc.

_Them_ is sometimes confused with _those_:

She fetched ’im round to one of _them_ revivalist chaps. (Sketches 201. 2.)

_A waiter._

I wouldn’t ’ave ’em know as ’ow I was one o’ _them_ college blokes. (Novel Notes 203. 90.)

_Uncultivated young man._

With _them_ little hands. (Woodb. Farm 19. 20.)

_A farmer._