American Language Supplement 2 (96 page)
Read American Language Supplement 2 Online
Authors: H.L. Mencken
1
With
th
as in
there
.
2
The pronunciation of this name seems to be unsettled in England, as it is in America. When Alanson B.
Houghton
(1863–1941) was appointed ambassador to Germany, in 1922, he announced that he preferred
Howtun
. One of the
Houghtons
in Who’s Who in America, 1946–47, prefers
Hotun
and another
Hot’n
. Holt says in Wild Names I Have Met that even within the board of
Houghton Mifflin
, the Boston publishers, two pronunciations are used –
Hoton
and
Howton
. Elsewhere in New England it is often
Hooton
. The people of
Houghton
, Mich., call it
Hoton
. Says Holt: “Anything will do – except
Huffton
.”
3
This is also the New York pronunciation. In the Texas city it is
Hyooston
.
4
Broadcast English, Vol. VII, gives
Jaymisson
and
Jammisson
as variants.
5
Also used for
Mahan
.
6
Broadcast English, Vol. VII, prefers
Mingiss
, but also gives
Mengiz
. It says that
Menziz
is used in Australia. The name is Scottish. Black says that it was originally
de Meyners
, which has become
Manners
in England. It is traced to 1214. There have been many variants in spelling, including
Megnies, Mainzeis, Mengues, Menyas, Menzheis, Mennes
and
Menzas
. Said a writer in the Sydney (Australia)
Bulletin
, Jan. 1, 1936: “
Mingies
in England merely represent the attempts of Southerners to imitate the Scottish pronunciation, for no Scot ever called it that. The modern spelling is the result of a confusion by the early Scottish printers of the letters
y
and
z
, their tails making them look alike. The correct spelling is
Menyies
, which is nearer the correct pronunciation, though the Scotch say it with a twang it is impossible to reproduce in writing.”
7
A touchy English
Montgomery
is said to send the following letter to persons who make the first syllable of his name
Mont:
“During our conversation today I noticed with regret that you were finding some difficulty in correctly pronouncing my name. As
Montgomery
is one of the many words in which the letter
o
is pronounced as a
u
, I think perhaps it might help you if I were to remind you of some of the other words in this large category: ‘London company’s governor’s accomplished comedy mother coming to Tonbridge Monday. One son working constable, other brother recovering.’ You will agree that if these words were pronounced as spelt they would sound horrible. That is precisely what happens when I hear people mispronouncing
Montgomery
.”
1
This is the pronunciation given by Broadcast English, but William Hickey says in the London
Daily Express
, Sept. 7, 1945, that
Munian
is often heard.
2
Titles and Forms of Address says that
Peeps
is used by living members of the clan, but that
Peppiz
was used formerly. Broadcast English says that the Earl of Cottenham, whose family name it is, sticks to
Peppiss
.
3
The
Reader’s Digest
, Nov., 1935, said that this pronunciation has now been given up, and the name is pronounced as it is spelled.
4
The
th
as in
there
.
5
But sometimes it is pronounced as spelled and sometimes it is
Strahn Strachey
is always
Straytchy
.
6
i.e
., almost
walk up
.
1
The
Maryland Historical Magazine
, Sept., 1944, p. 177, n. 1, says that this name is pronounced
Win-der
in England and
Wine-der
in the United States. Brig.-Gen. William Henry
Winder
(1775–1824) was in command of the American troops at Bladensburg, Aug. 24, 1814, and got a famous licking.
2
Ffoulkes
, like
Ffrench, Ffarington, Fford, Ffennell, Ffinch
, etc., is Welsh, but the form has been imitated in England and Ireland. The initial
Ff
is sometimes written
ff
, but this is an error. Says Trevor Davenport-
Ffoulkes
in Two Little
f
’s, London Sunday
Times
, April 22, 1934: “Actually there exists no such thing as two little
f
’s. The Welsh alphabet provides by its ninth letter the double
f
in the same way as the English alphabet provides the double
u
(
w
). The pronunciation of the Welsh single
f
is
v
. as in
ever, Eva
, etc.; the double
f
provides for the sound of the English
f
.… If families holding such names were to use the Welsh single
f
the pronunciation would be
Vookes, Vrench, Varington, Vinch
, and in my own case,
Voulkes
.” This indicates that Mr. Davenport-
Ffoulkes
sounds the
l
in his second name. I am indebted here to Mrs. Delia H. Biddle Pugh, of New York.
3
See W. E. Henley’s note in The Letters of Robert Louis Stevenson; New York, 1923, Vol. II, p. 305. Black gives
Cunygam, Cuninggame, Conighame
and
Cumynghame
as early spellings.
4
Memoirs of My Times, Including Personal Reminiscences of Eminent Men, by George Hodder; London, 1870, reprinted in Personal Reminiscences of Barham, Harness and Hodder, by Richard Henry Stoddard; New York, 1875, p. 321.
1
For
Pierce
see A Word-List From Hampstead, S. E. New Hampshire, by Joseph William Carr,
Dialect Notes
, Vol. III, Part III, 1907, p. 196, and Colloquial Expressions From Hillsborough County, New Hampshire, by Jason Almus Russell,
American Speech
, June, 1930, p. 420. Carr says that
Ordway
is commonly pronounced
Orderway
in New Hampshire. For
Hawthorne
see Salem With a Guide, by George Arvedson; Salem (Mass.), 1926, p. 38, n. 4. I am indebted here to Mr. Alexander Kadison.
2
The Life and Public Services of Hon. Henry Wilson, by Thomas Russell and Elias Nason; Boston, 1872, pp. 19–20.
3
Private communication.
4
The literature of surnames is very large. There are lists of books, pamphlets and articles on the subject down to the end of 1922 in Kennedy’s Bibliography, pp. 57–58, 149–50, 187 and 328–37, and others are noted in AL4, Chapter X, Section 1, and in the preceding pages. In The Theory of Proper Names; Oxford, 1940, Alan H. Gardiner says, p. 43: “A proper name is a word or group of words recognized as indicating or tending to indicate the object or objects to which it refers by virtue of its distinctive sound alone, without regard to any meaning possessed by that sound from the start, or acquired by it through association with the said object or objects.… The purest of proper names are those of which the sounds strike us as wholly arbitrary, yet perfectly distinctive, and about which we should feel, if ignorant of their bearers, no trace of meaning or significance.” The following may be useful to the inquirer desirous of pursuing the subject: The Story of Surnames, by William Dodgson Bowman; New York, 1931; The Ancestry of Family Names, by Howard F. Barker,
Atlantic Monthly
, Aug., 1935; Family Names, by Jerome C. Hixson,
Words
, Feb. and March, 1937; These Names of Ours: A Book of Surnames, by Augustus Wilfrid Dellquest; New York, 1938; What’s Your Name?, by Lewis H. Chrisman,
Journal of Education
, May, 1944; Surnames and the Chronology of the English Vocabulary, by Ernest Weekley, in Adjectives – and Other Words; London, 1930; Personal Names, by George H. McKnight, in English Words and Their Backgrounds; New York. 1923; Irish Gaelic Clan Names and Family Names Abundant in America, by J. N. Enos,
Americana
, July, 1927; Middle English Surnames of Occupation, 1100–1350, With an Excursus on Toponymical Surnames, by G. Fransson; Lund (Sweden), 1935; Scottish Clans and Families Represented in America, by J. N. Enos,
Americana
, July, 1923; Early Anglo-Norman, English, Welsh and Scottish Families in Ireland Now Represented in the United States,
Americana
, July, 1926; What’s the Name, Please? A Guide to the Correct Pronunciation of Current Prominent Names, by Charles Earle Funk; New York, 1936; revised edition, 1938; and The Founders of New England, by Howard F. Barker,
American Historical Review
, July, 1933.
1
When, in 1920, Simon Newton undertook a survey of the given-names of American males
2
he found that
John
led all the rest, with
William, James, Charles, George, Thomas, Henry, Robert, Joseph
and
Edward
following in order. In 1938 Daniel Francis Clancy unearthed evidence which led him to believe that
William
had displaced
John
, with
John, Charles, George, James, Frank, Henry, Robert, Arthur
and
Edward
following,
3
but his sample was by no
means as large as Newton’s and other investigations tend to show that
John
is still in the lead.
1
If so, it has held its place in the English-speaking lands for a long, long while, for the roster of the first Common Council of London, held in 1347, showed 34
Johns
, 17
Williams
, 15
Thomases
, 10
Richards
and 8
Roberts
in a total enrolment of 133.
2
In the interval there have been passing fashions for other given-names, but not one of them has forced its way into the top bracket.
3
That, of course, is not saying that
John’s
frequency continues to be absolute as well as relative. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that it is slowly losing ground in the United States, along with all the other ancient saints’ names.
4
They continue, however, to be almost unchallenged on the Continent of Europe, and have been so for a thousand years, for in the Catholic areas Canon 761 of the Canon Law ordains that such a name must be given to every child at baptism, and even in the Protestant areas
they are still dominant. Canon 761, which is a reaffirmation of ancient legislation, was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV on May 22, 1917, and reads as follows:
Curent parochi ut ei qui baptizatur christianum imponatur nomen, quod si id consequi non poterunt, nomini a parentibus imposito addant nomen alicuius Sancti et in libro baptizatorum utrumque nomen perscribant.
1
This may be Englished thus:
Let pastors take care that a Christian name be given to the one baptized; and, if they cannot accomplish this, let them add to the name given by the parents the name of some saint, and inscribe both names in the book of baptisms.
Even in such strongholds of Protestantism as Prussia, Denmark and Sweden, where the Canon Law has no authority, Canon 761 is generally followed.
2
It is also followed, of course, by Catholics in the United States, if not by parents then at least by priests. In case a child is presented for baptism by a mother or father who insists upon giving it some non-canonical name the priest is required to add a saint’s name. He may do it
sotto voce
, but do it he must, and the saint’s name goes on the records of the parish.
3
Sometimes
this causes difficulties later on, as when a boy named, say,
Woodrow
applies for a birth certificate, and discovers to his astonishment that he is really
Joseph Woodrow
or
Woodrow Joseph
. There has been some murmuring against Canon 761 among American Catholics in recent years, especially in the Middle West, for it works against the fanciful names that are in vogue there, and many priests have seen fit to lean as far backward as possible in their interpretation of it. In one of the current treatises on moral theology it is watered down to the following:
Parents should choose suitable names for their children, avoiding such as are obscene, ridiculous, or impious. It is advisable that the name of a saint or of some other person distinguished for holiness be chosen, for this will be of a spiritual advantage to the child and an edification to others.
1
Not a few of the common saints’ names, of course, are of heathen origin – for example, the Greek
George
, the Latin
Paul
and the Germanic
Charles
– but that fact has been long forgotten; all that the Canon Law now demands is that saints on the Calendar or prophets of an earlier day once bore them. Thus, in an official list of permissible baptismal names published in 1935 by authority of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, then Archbishop of New York,
2
both
Adolf
and
Benito
appear, though the former is an ancient Teutonic name signifying “like a wolf” and the latter is a pet-name derived from
Benedetto
. They qualify because
Adolf
was the name of an Osnabrück saint of the Thirteenth Century, remembered for his devotion to the poor, and because
Benito
, like
Benedetto
itself, is an accepted form, in Italy, of the name of
Benedictus
(signifying blessed), the great founder of Western monasticism who passes in England and the United States as
Benedict
, in France and Belgium as
Bénédict
or
Benoît
, in the German lands as
Benedikt
, and in Spain and Portugal as
Benedicto
.
