Webster's International recognizes it, citing Chancellor Kent and an obscure author of the seventeenth century. The most ardent and most prominent defender of the word is Lounsbury,1 the doughty champion of many words oppressed and abused by the pedants and purists. As Lounsbury's The Standard of Usage in English may not be accessible to all of our readers, it may be well to epitomize his treatment of loan as a verb: Loan is a Scandinavian word, which as a noun supplanted the corresponding Anglo-Saxon word. In an act of parliament of 1542-43 it is used as a verb. After occasional use in England, it was transplanted to America: "though not American in origin, it is American by adoption.' Joel Barlow used it in 1778. For some reason, says Lounsbury, it has been made the subject of hostile criticism, although it has antiquity, precedent, and analogy in its favor. Those who are willing to follow one great leader can use loan with Professor Lounsbury's unqualified approval: the overwhelming sentiment of scholars is against it, though a noun can become a verb at any moment. The writer has seen the word only three times-once in H. W. Mabie's and once in Professor F. E. Schelling's books, both American writers, men of superior culture; and once in Rudyard Kipling's serious verse. The weight of numbers is certainly against loan; but Lounsbury's name is a tower of strength, and the other authorities are of high order, though few in number. Popular usage in America is very strong in favor of loan but the writers do not use it. Indeed the use of loan as a verb has no raison d'être whatever at present: it has made no attempt to establish any special territory for itself and is a useless synonym of lend. The bankers might make it a technical term; among real estate dealers it has considerable Vogue. 1 The Standard of Usage in English, pp. 203-205. LXXI MATHEMATICS-SINGULAR OR PLURAL? The question raised in the title to this section might seem to have but one possible answer; yet it is only a short time since mathematics was used as a plural by eminent authors, scholars, and literati. 1 A. S. Hill says, "more frequently singular.' Genung2 recognizes both numbers. Most of the dictionaries, if they say anything in regard to the matter, give the singular. The plural, however, occurs occasionally in the writings of Bishop Berkeley and of De Quincey; at least twenty-two times in the essays of Sir William Hamilton (died 1856); occasionally in Poe, Ruskin, Christopher North, Browning, Matthew Arnold and John Stuart Mill-all comparatively recent. The fact that Hamilton used it so often is good proof that it was in vogue in academic circles in Great Britain in the first half of the nineteenth century. A prominent English scholar, writing in America in 1868, uses the plural. This fact, coupled with its use by Poe, would prove that the plural had some vogue in America in the generations just back of us. Poe in the Purloined Letter says, "The mathematics are the science of form and quantity." De Quincey says, “Mathematics, it is well known, are extensively cultivated in the north of England.” Sir William Hamilton says, "mathematics are of primary importance as a logical exercise of reason. The singular seems to be universal in America at present. 1 Beginnings of Rhetoric and Composition, p. 59. LXXII ME AS A QUASI-NOMINATIVE To the "lesser grammarians" the heading of this section will bring a shudder. The purist will close this book in scorn and derision. None the less, the writer will give a fair and impartial account of me in its use as a nominative case of the pronoun. T. L. K. Oliphant 1 in his well-known volumes shows that me as a nominative runs through English literature for centuries. It occurs both in the predicative position, that is, after the verb, and also alone in reply to a question; e.g., "Who said that?" "Me." It is especially common in the drama. As me (as I) occurs in Scott, Shakespeare, Steele, and Charles Kingsley. In order to account for the me, some grammarians have construed as as a preposition. This is utterly unsatisfactory, for it is easier to construe me as a fossilized nominative than to parse as as a preposition. Than me (than I) is as common as as me. It is found in Shakespeare, Swift, Prior, Pope, Southey, and A. H. Clough. Nesfield, one of our best living grammarians, parses than in these locutions as a preposition with the objective. Dean Alford treated it in the same way fifty years ago. The writer, however, had rather take me as a quasi-nominative. No one would dare to say that the English language has ever permitted the use of me at the head of the sentence; e.g., "Me told you." But, in an isolated position, as "Who told you that?" answer, "Me," it has been running in the literature and in polite society for several centuries. Again: after the verb, e.g., it was me, that's me, cited by Oliphant.* This brings us to the much-disputed, never-to-be-settled, it is me. Those who have no respect for authority or recognize no authority in language, might as well skip over the rest of this section. If there is no tribunal of appeal; if every man is to have his own opinion and not be influenced by the usage of polite society and of great authors, and by the opinion of the learned, then no disputed points can ever be settled. In law, politics, religion, we accept the mandates of a higher court; then why not do so in language? 6 7 8 3 4 Now, the purists and pedants cannot conceive how it is me can ever be right; they will not listen to argument. The great scholars, however, can conceive of me as a quasi-nominative after the verb. We find the phrase it is me stoutly defended by Earle,1 Lounsbury,2 Latham, Alford, Kellner," A. J. Ellis, Jespersen, Sweet, and other scholars of international fame, not to supplant it is I in dignified or solemn discourse but as permissible in colloquial English. Latham recognized it as a "secondary nominative." Alford said that everybody used it in England in his day; Henry Sweet says the same thing. Professor John Earle not only corroborated the statement of these two scholars but treated it is I as "an intruder." Leon Kellner, the Austrian scholar, in his history of English syntax, returns several times to it is me, explaining its origin. Lounsbury says that it is used by Shakespeare, Marlowe, Greene, Lodge, Fletcher, and Addison. (Who will not accept the usage of Addison, the famous author of the Spectator?) A. J. Ellis, one of the most profound students of the language, said in 1864 that it is me is good English, and it is I, a mistaken purism. 1 Philology of the English Tongue, edition of 1887, pp. 539, 540. 2 History of the English Language, pp. 165, 273. History of the English Language, p. 586. 4 The Queen's English, 1866, pp. 154ff. 5 Historical Outlines of English Syntax, pp. 42, 135. Note F, The Queen's English, edition of 1866. Progress in Language, §§ 184, 194. 8 Short Historical English Grammar, p. 105. Richard Grant White, the most austere of all our verbalists, said that it is me is not entirely vulgar. George P. Marsh, a pioneer in English studies in America, said that it was heard very frequently among educated people in England but not in America. Dean Alford, in writing to a number of scholars, had to decide between it will be I and it will be me, and used the latter. More recently, T. L. K. Oliphant spoke of " our common it's me," though he did not approve of it. The American scholar O. F. Emerson1 says, "found in America, and may be justified in opposition to the schools." Jespersen, the distinguished Dane, defends it is me very strenuously. In his Progress in Language (1894) he says, "The eminent author of Early English Pronunciation (Ellis) is no doubt right in defending it's me as the natural form against the blames of quasi-grammarians. It is me is certainly more natural than it is I." Jespersen says that "grammar schools and school grammars" have interfered with the spread of this phrase. 2 It is me has been treated as a barbarism in so many schoolbooks that it would be impossible to state the case for the prosecution. A few textbooks may be mentioned on account of their long popularity. Quackenbos says, "as unphilological as it is vulgar. . . . Those who condone it is me must, if consistent, tolerate it is us, these are them, the stepping-stone to them's them." A. S. Hill classes it as an 3 error but says that it is used in England by many educated persons. Nesfield, one of the leading recent grammarians of England, advises against the use of it is me. If human testimony can send a man to the gallows, it might certainly establish the fact that, in 1859, 1864, 1867, and 1910, it is me was used by the educated classes of England. Some educated Americans, also, can testify that it slips very 1 History of the English Language, p. 324. 2 Practical Rhetoric, edition of 1896, p. 236. Beginnings of Rhetoric and Composition, p. 109 and note. * English Grammar, Past and Present, p. 204. |