Part 20

Curiously enough, this widely dispersed and highly savory dialect--already, as I shall show, come to a certain grammatical regularity--has attracted the professional writers of the country almost as little as it has attracted the philologists. There are foreshadowings of it in "Huckleberry Finn," in "The Biglow Papers" and even in the rough humor of the period that began with J. C. Neal and company and ended with Artemus Ward and Josh Billings, but in those early days it had not yet come to full flower; it wanted the influence of the later immigrations to take on its present character. The enormous dialect literature of twenty years ago left it almost untouched. Localisms were explored diligently, but the general dialect went virtually unobserved. It is not in "Chimmie Fadden"; it is not in [Pg191] "David Harum"; it is not even in the pre-fable stories of George Ade, perhaps the most acute observer of average, undistinguished American types, urban and rustic, that American literature has yet produced. The business of reducing it to print had to wait for Ring W. Lardner, a Chicago newspaper reporter. In his grotesque tales of base-ball players, so immediately and so deservedly successful and now so widely imitated,[18] Lardner reports the common speech not only with humor, but also with the utmost accuracy. The observations of Charters and his associates are here reinforced by the sharp ear of one specially competent, and the result is a mine of authentic American.

In a single story by Lardner, in truth, it is usually possible to discover examples of almost every logical and grammatical peculiarity of the emerging language, and he always resists very stoutly the temptation to overdo the thing. Here, for example, are a few typical sentences from "The Busher's Honeymoon":[19]

I and Florrie /was/ married the day before yesterday just /like/ I told you we /was/ going to be.... You /was/ wise to get married in Bedford, where /not nothing/ is nearly half so dear.... The sum of what I have /wrote/ down is $29.40.... Allen told me I /should ought/ to give the priest $5.... I never /seen/ him before.... I didn't used to eat /no/ lunch in the playing season except when I /knowed/ I was not going to work.... I guess the meals /has/ cost me all together about $1.50, and I have /eat/ very little myself....

I was willing to tell her all about /them/ two poor girls.... They must not be /no/ mistake about who is the boss in my house. Some men /lets/ their /wife/ run all over them.... Allen has /went/ to a college football game. One of the reporters /give/ him a pass.... He called up and said he /hadn't/ only the one pass, but he was not hurting my feelings /none/.... The flat across the hall from this /here/ one is for rent.... If we should /of boughten/ furniture it would cost us in the neighborhood of $100, even without /no/ piano.... I consider myself lucky to /of/ found out about this before it was too late and somebody else had /of/ gotten the tip.... It will always be /ourn/, even when we move away.... Maybe you could /of did/ better if you had /of went/ at it in a different way.... Both /her/ and you /is/ welcome at my house.... I never /seen/ so much wine /drank/ in my life....

[Pg192]

Here are specimens to fit into most of Charters' categories--verbs confused as to tense, pronouns confused as to case, double and even triple negatives, nouns and verbs disagreeing in number, /have/ softened to /of/, /n/ marking the possessive instead of /s/, /like/ used in place of /as/, and the personal pronoun substituted for the demonstrative adjective. A study of the whole story would probably unearth all the remaining errors noted in Kansas City. Lardner's baseball player, though he has pen in hand and is on his guard, and is thus very careful to write /would not/ instead of /wouldn't/ and even /am not/ instead of /ain't/, offers a comprehensive and highly instructive panorama of popular speech habits. To him the forms of the subjunctive mood have no existence, and /will/ and /shall/ are identical, and adjectives and adverbs are indistinguishable, and the objective case is merely a variorum form of the nominative. His past tense is, more often than not, the orthodox present tense. All fine distinctions are obliterated in his speech. He uses invariably the word that is simplest, the grammatical form that is handiest. And so he moves toward the philological millennium dreamed of by George T. Lanigan, when "the singular verb shall lie down with the plural noun, and a little conjugation shall lead them."

§ 3

/The Verb/--A study of the materials amassed by Charters and Lardner, if it be reinforced by observation of what is heard on the streets every day, will show that the chief grammatical peculiarities of spoken American lie among the verbs and pronouns. The nouns in common use, in the overwhelming main, are quite sound in form. Very often, of course, they do not belong to the vocabulary of English, but they at least belong to the vocabulary of American: the proletariat, setting aside transient slang, calls things by their proper names, and pronounces those names more or less correctly. The adjectives, too, are treated rather politely, and the adverbs, though commonly transformed into adjectives, are not further mutilated. But the verbs and pronouns undergo changes which set off the common speech very [Pg193] sharply from both correct English and correct American. Their grammatical relationships are thoroughly overhauled and sometimes they are radically modified in form.

This process is natural and inevitable, for it is among the verbs and pronouns, as we have seen, that the only remaining grammatical inflections in English, at least of any force or consequence, are to be found, and so they must bear the chief pressure of the influences that have been warring upon all inflections since the earliest days. The primitive Indo-European language, it is probable, had eight cases of the noun; the oldest known Teutonic dialect reduced them to six; in Anglo-Saxon they fell to four, with a weak and moribund instrumental hanging in the air; in Middle English the dative and accusative began to decay; in Modern English they have disappeared altogether, save as ghosts to haunt grammarians. But we still have two plainly defined conjugations of the verb, and we still inflect it for number, and, in part, at least, for person. And we yet retain an objective case of the pronoun, and inflect it for person, number and gender.

Some of the more familiar conjugations of verbs in the American common speech, as recorded by Charters or Lardner or derived from my own collectanea, are here set down:

/Present/ /Preterite/ /Perfect Participle/

Am was bin (or ben)[20] Attack attackted attackted (Be)[21] was bin (or ben) [20] Beat beaten beat Become[22] become became Begin begun began Bend bent bent Bet bet bet Bind bound bound Bite bitten bit Bleed bled bled Blow blowed (or blew) blowed (or blew) Break broken broke Bring brought (or brung, or brang) brung Broke (passive) broke broke Build built built Burn burnt[23] burnt Burst[24] ---- ---- Bust busted busted Buy bought (or boughten) bought (or boughten) Can could could'a Catch caught[25] caught Choose chose choose Climb clum clum Cling (to hold fast) clung clung Cling (to ring) clang clang Come come came Creep crep (or crope) crep Crow crew crew Cut cut cut Dare dared dared Deal dole dealt Dig dug dug Dive dove dived Do done done (or did) Drag drug dragged Draw drawed[26] drawed (or drew) Dream dreampt dreampt Drink drank (or drunk) drank Drive drove drove Drown drownded drownded Eat et (or eat) ate Fall fell (or fallen) fell Feed fed fed Feel felt felt Fetch fetched[27] fetch Fight fought[28] fought Find found found Fine found found Fling flang flung Flow flew flowed Fly flew flew Forget forgotten forgotten Forsake forsaken forsook Freeze frozen (or friz) frozen Get got (or gotten) gotten Give give give Glide glode[29] glode Go went went Grow growed growed Hang hung[30] hung Have had had (or hadden) Hear heerd heerd (or heern) Heat het[31] het Heave hove hove Hide hidden hid H'ist[32] h'isted h'isted Hit hit hit Hold helt held (or helt) Holler hollered hollered Hurt hurt hurt Keep kep kep Kneel knelt knelt Know knowed knew Lay laid (or lain) laid Lead led led Lean lent lent Leap lep lep Learn learnt learnt Lend loaned[33] loaned Lie (to falsify) lied lied Lie (to recline) laid (or lain) laid Light lit lit Lose lost lost Make made made May ---- might'a Mean meant meant Meet met met Mow mown mowed Pay paid paid Plead pled pled Prove proved (or proven) proven Put put put Quit quit quit Raise raised raised Read read read Rench[34] renched renched Rid rid rid Ride ridden rode Rile[35] riled riled Ring rung rang Rise riz (or rose) riz Run run ran Say sez said See seen saw Sell sold sold Send sent sent Set set[36] sat Shake shaken (or shuck) shook Shave shaved shaved Shed shed shed Shine (to polish) shined shined Shoe shoed shoed Shoot shot shot Show shown showed Sing sung sang Sink sunk sank Sit[37] ---- ---- Skin skun skun Sleep slep slep Slide slid slid Sling slang slung Slit slitted slitted Smell smelt smelt Sneak snuck snuck Speed speeded speeded Spell spelt spelt Spill spilt spilt Spin span span Spit spit spit Spoil spoilt spoilt Spring sprung sprang Steal stole stole Sting stang stang Stink stank stank Strike struck struck Swear swore swore Sweep swep swep Swell swole swollen Swim swum swam Swing swang swung Take taken took Teach taught taught Tear tore torn Tell tole tole Think thought[38] thought Thrive throve throve Throw throwed threw Tread tread tread Wake woke woken Wear wore wore Weep wep wep Wet wet wet Win won (or wan)[39] won (or wan) Wind wound wound Wish (wisht) wisht wisht Wring wrung wrang Write written wrote

[Pg198]

A glance at these conjugations is sufficient to show several general tendencies, some of them going back, in their essence, to the earliest days of the English language. The most obvious is that leading to the transfer of verbs from the so-called strong conjugation to the weak--a change already in operation before the Norman Conquest, and very marked during the Middle English period. Chaucer used /growed/ for /grew/ in the prologue to "The Wife of Bath's Tale," and /rised/ for /rose/ and /smited/ for /smote/ are in John Purvey's edition of the Bible, /circa/ 1385.[40] Many of these transformations were afterward abandoned, but a large number survived, for example, /climbed/ for /clomb/ as the preterite of /to climb/, and /melted/ for /molt/ as the preterite of /to melt/. Others showed themselves during the early part of the Modern English period. /Comed/ as the perfect participle of /to come/ and /digged/ as the preterite of /to dig/ are both in Shakespeare, and the latter is also in Milton and in the Authorized Version of the Bible. This tendency went furthest, of course, in the vulgar speech, and it has been embalmed in the English dialects. /I seen/ and /I knowed/, for example, are common to many of them. But during the seventeenth century it seems to have been arrested, and even to have given way to a contrary tendency--that is, toward strong conjugations. The English of Ireland, which preserves many seventeenth century forms, shows this plainly. /Ped/ for /paid/, /gother/ for /gathered/, and /ruz/ for /raised/ are still in use there, and Joyce says flatly that the Irish, "retaining the old English custom [/i. e./, the custom of the period of Cromwell's invasion, /circa/ 1650], have a leaning toward the strong inflection."[41] Certain verb forms of the American colonial period, now reduced to the estate of localisms, are also probably survivors of the seventeenth century.

"The three great causes of change in language," says Sayce, "may be briefly described as (1) imitation or analogy, (2) a wish to be clear and emphatic, and (3) laziness. Indeed, if we choose to go deep enough we might reduce all three causes to the general one of laziness, since it is easier to imitate than to say [Pg199] something new."[42] This tendency to take well-worn paths, paradoxically enough, is responsible both for the transfer of verbs from the strong to the weak declension, and for the transfer of certain others from the weak to the strong. A verb in everyday use tends almost inevitably to pull less familiar verbs with it, whether it be strong or weak. Thus /fed/ as the preterite of /to feed/ and /led/ as the preterite of /to lead/ paved the way for /pled/ as the preterite of /to plead/, and /rode/ as plainly performed the same office for /glode/, and /rung/ for /brung/, and /drove/ for /dove/ and /hove/, and /stole/ for /dole/, and /won/ for /skun/. Moreover, a familiar verb, itself acquiring a faulty inflection, may fasten a similar inflection upon another verb of like sound. Thus /het/, as the preterite of /to heat/, no doubt owes its existence to the example of /et/, the vulgar preterite of /to eat/. So far the irregular verbs. The same combination of laziness and imitativeness works toward the regularization of certain verbs that are historically irregular. In addition, of course, there is the fact that regularization is itself intrinsically simplification--that it makes the language easier. One sees the antagonistic pull of the two influences in the case of verbs ending in /-ow/. The analogy of /knew/ suggests /snew/ as the preterite of /to snow/, and it is sometimes encountered in the American vulgate. But the analogy of /snowed/ also suggests /knowed/, and the superior regularity of the form is enough to overcome the greater influence of /knew/ as a more familiar word than /snowed/. Thus /snew/ grows rare and is in decay, but /knowed/ shows vigor, and so do /growed/ and /throwed/. The substitution of /heerd/ for /heard/ also presents a case of logic and convenience supporting analogy. The form is suggested by /steered/, /feared/ and /cheered/, but its main advantage lies in the fact that it gets rid of a vowel change, always an impediment to easy speech. Here, as in the contrary direction, one barbarism breeds another. Thus /taken/, as the preterite of /to take/, has undoubtedly helped to make preterites of two other perfects, /shaken/ and /forsaken/.

But in the presence of two exactly contrary tendencies, the one in accordance with the general movement of the language [Pg200] since the Norman Conquest and the other opposed to it, it is unsafe, of course, to attempt any very positive generalizations. All one may exhibit with safety is a general habit of treating the verb conveniently. Now and then, disregarding grammatical tendencies, it is possible to discern what appear to be logical causes for verb phenomena. That /lit/ is preferred to /lighted/ and /hung/ to /hanged/ is probably the result of an aversion to fine distinctions, and perhaps, more fundamentally, to the passive. Again, the use of /found/ as the preterite of /to fine/ is obviously due to an ignorant confusion of /fine/ and /find/, due to the wearing off of /-d/ in /find/, and that of /lit/ as the preterite of /to alight/ to a confusion of /alight/ and /light/. Yet again, the use of /tread/ as its own preterite in place of /trod/ is probably the consequence of a vague feeling that a verb ending with /d/ is already of preterite form. /Shed/ exhibits the same process. Both are given a logical standing by such preterites as /bled/, /fed/, /fled/, /led/, /read/, /dead/ and /spread/. But here, once more, it is hazardous to lay down laws, for /shredded/, /headed/, /dreaded/, /threaded/ and /breaded/ at once come to mind. In other cases it is still more difficult to account for preterites in common use. /Drug/ is wholly illogical, and so are /clum/ and /friz/. Neither, fortunately, has yet supplanted the more intelligible form of its verb, and so it is not necessary to speculate about them. As for /crew/, it is archaic English surviving in American, and it was formed, perhaps, by analogy with /knew/, which has succumbed in American to /knowed/.