in a man. and grace into his personal letters. A refreshing absence of the monotonous "I," the colorless slang, and the bareness of unpictorial narrative, may soon be the outcome of such study. Friendly letters of the best sort give an opportunity to join the larger vocabulary of writing with the larger idiomatic freedom of conversation in a manner unparalleled in any other species of composition. They should show the best there is Humor too quiet to make an impression in conversation; pithy sayings too homely for formal writing; whimsicalities too personal for public speech, and deliberate drolleries of syntax not to be tolerated in other writing: all these are among the unique privileges of the letter writer. While letters have possibilities that conversation lacks, it is ordinarily a safe rule to write as one would talk if one could, if the right words would come at the right time. Good letters are good talk, minus the interruptions, the incomplete sentences, the ill-chosen adjectives, and the slang. If time permits, an assignment on friendly letters may include the reading of specified letters and the writing of a letter on such a topic as one of the following. Particular effort should be made to get pictorial effects in description by vivid words, especially adjectives and verbs. Conversation may sometimes be quoted (direct discourse) instead of indirectly summarized. Trivial details of a journey or a day's work have no place in a letter. Neither have ill-natured personalities. The spirit of a kindly humor should give the key for the whole composition. SUBJECTS FOR FRIENDLY LETTERS 1. Humors of Our Freshman Banquet. 2. A Chapter on Hazing. 3. Comedies and Tragedies of Studying in a Chapter House. 4. Our Class Mascot. 5. The Boldest Bluffer in the Class. 6. College Traditions. 7. A Chapter of Accidents. 8. My Busy Day. 9. The Big Game. 10. A Journey. 11. Reminiscences of a Summer Outing. 12. Light Reading. 13. The Best Plays of the Season. 14. Humors of Bachelor Housekeeping. 19. The College Banquet. 20. Description of the College Grinds. 21. My Irrational Chum. 22. The Laziest Man in College. 23. Close Calls in the Recitation Room. 24. Sundays in Term Time. 25. Coeducation in Theory and in Practice. CHAPTER XI COLLOQUIAL ENGLISH There can be no fairer ambition than to excel in talk; to be affable, gay, ready, clear, and welcome; to have a fact, a thought, or an illustration, pat to every subject; and not only to cheer the flight of time among our intimates, but bear our part in that great international congress, always sitting, where public wrongs are first declared, public errors first corrected, and the course of public opinion shaped, day by day, a little nearer to the right. - STEVENSON. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there are two English languages. They have much in common, and under some circumstances tend to run together. Their differences, however, are more extensive than is generally admitted by grammarians and lexicographers. These two languages are the colloquial and the literary. Literary English in its written and spoken forms is the principal subject of this book, as it is of all textbooks of rhetoric. It is the only English proper for writing of any sort except friendly letters, and for speech of any sort addressed to large groups of persons. Colloquial English, on the other hand, is the language used by educated speakers in conversation and in informal public address to small groups. Textbook writers tacitly assume that good colloquial English comes naturally to those who study the principles of good literary English. They content themselves by mentioning a few of the contracted verb-forms tolerated in conversation. The fact is that the differences between the two kinds of language are so considerable that a single chapter is inadequate to catalogue them. Inflection. -The inflection of nouns and pronouns in colloquial English is identical with that in literary English. The verb, on the other hand, shows many differences. Among these the contractions of the pronouns and of the adverb not with the auxiliaries are familiar to all: I'm, you're, he's, she's, we're, they're, I've, you've, we've, they've, I'll, you'll, he'll, she'll, we'll,1 they'll, I'd,' you'd, he'd, we'd,' they'd, aren't, isn't, wasn't, weren't, don't, doesn't, didn't, sha'n't, shouldn't, won't, wouldn't, can't, couldn't, mayn't, mightn't, haven't, hasn't, hadn't, oughtn't. Less obvious and more interesting are some of the liberties which colloquial English takes with the tenses and moods of formal grammar. Among these the future tense is the most conspicuous. Our present standard usage in regard to the auxiliaries shall and will, should and would, is clearly and briefly stated by Woolley (Rules 46-50). It is the business of every student to learn and to apply these rules in colloquial as well as in formal English. Conformity to the principles that have grown up in this matter is expected of all educated persons. The informality of conversation does not justify such errors as "We will be too tired to go or "I will be pleased to help you." But the established rules for the use of shall and should in questions and in indirect quotations are often evaded in conversation by educated speakers. It is correct to say, Shall you be at home this evening?" It is incorrect to say, "Will you," unless a definite promise is asked for. We avoid the slight stiffness of "shall you" by the far more commonly heard form, "Are you going to be at home this evening?" Similarly, in indirect quotations it is correct to say, "He told me he should be out of town about a week," and incorrect to say, "He told me he would be out of town." The ordinary equivalent in conversation is, "He told me he was going to be out of town." This tendency to avoid shall and should, even on the part of those who 66 1 These forms are contractions with will and would, and may not be used where usage requires shall or should. know the correct usage, is one of the curious phases of the present transition period in English grammar. Students of English should beware of the notion that there is any affectation in strict obedience to the present rules, or any excuse for violation of them; but they may well recognize the existence of what is almost an alternative future tense formed by going with the infinitive. The French have the same idiom in conversation. There is no future-perfect tense in colloquial English. The perfect tense usually takes its place. Formal English: "When he shall have completed his task, he may go." Colloquial English: "When he's got through with his work, he may go." Formal English : At the end of this year I shall have been twenty years in service." Colloquial English: "It'll be twenty years next December since I came here." The disappearing subjunctive mood. - Few traces of the subjunctive mood remain in colloquial English. Its place has been largely taken by the indicative. In the dependent clause of present and future conditional sentences, the indicative mood is found where the condition is one of reasonable probability, the verb-phrase with should where it is of remote probability. Thus in colloquial English we find the following usages : If he's there when I come, I'll give it to him. If he takes more than he should, he'll be sorry. If he should take that road, he'd surely be too late. On the other hand, in conditions contrary to fact, we still hear the past subjunctive: If he were only a little stronger, he could do it all right. Notice that the colloquial tendency away from the subjunctive produces such equivalents as these for the last two sentences: If he'd only been a little stronger, he could have done it all right. If he'd only take more pains with his work, he'd be the best man. |