Evening Star Newspaper, June 16, 1935, Page 94

14 Magazine Section OR a long time I have been think- ingofa reply to this most interesting as well as challenging letter sent me by a group of seniors at one of our leading univer- sities: “‘May we,without risk of offending, ask you, dear Mrs. Post, why youdon't live up to your opinion expressed in one of your own books, to the effect that interlarding American speech with foreign words is the height of pre- tentiousness, and therefore bad taste? *“If this is what you believe, why then don’t you head a movement to Americanize the aliens in our language instead of continuing to look down your nose at those of us who must struggle for a lingual facility, which you know only too well is beyond hope of attainment ? ‘“May we ask then, in the name of that common sense for which we so greatly esteem you, what you advise those of us, who might otlgsewise get passing marks in Culture, to do about our failure to make the French pro- nunciation grade? Won't you write an article on this subject please?”’ My reply to this letter, as 1 have already said, has been put off because the subject is so involved in contradictions that it is far from easy to answer clearly —and thérefore usefully. On the one hand, it is true that all people of good taste abhor any unnecessary dragging of foreign words into English speech, and therefore it would seem sensible to naturalize all French, German, Italian and other foreign words, which are an inseparable part of daily smeech, by pronouncing them as though spelled with the English alphabet. On the other hand, any such general plan as this would destroy all chance for a passing mark (let alone for honors) in culture because, excepting the color of our skin, nothing so definitely rates the quality of our cultivation as purity of speech — including correct pro- nunciation of foreign words in common use. Therefore, it is plain that any approved movement toward the Americanization of foreign words would have to be sponsored, not THIS WEEK by those who can’t pronounce them, but by those who can. But attempting to answer the question of how far it would seem possible to Americanize — and at the same time not distortingly vul- garize — words of French origin, which we say as well as hear every day, it will be easiest, I think, to separate certain con- tradictory classes, and then try to give you a separate answer for each class. - In Class' I we will put those words which have already been Americanized. In Class 11, words whose pronunciation has remained French, because there is no dif- ficulty whatever in pronouncing them. In Class III, words which are difficult to pronounce and should therefore be either Americanized or ostracized. In Class IV, proper names of foreign musi- cians and notables or others in the news of the day. And now in detail: Words in Class I are those which all people of good taste pronounce in plain English (unless they are talking in French). Even those rare few, who speak French as well as the French themselves, never pronounce valet, vallay. Menu is in- variably menyou; a waiter is called waiter and not garcon; restaurant is rest'rant (last syllable like aunt with a slightly broad a); a bou'evard is bull’-vard. Paris is never pro- nounc - ‘Paree, or Berlin, Behr-leen — except when you are in these cities. And certainly it is in much better taste to call our American college Noter Dayme, than to pronounce it in French; and yet we would (and should) say Notrr Damme when we mean the cathedral in Paris. What to do about Premier is a problem: Prumeer is as bad as “I seen him.” But Preemeer or Prem eer is certainly more in keeping in an English sen- tence than the French pronunciation. On the other hand, to hear some one speak of Prumeer Flandin is inexcusable since the French pronunciation prerm (to rhyme with term, but don’t pronounce the r) the yea (yes in the Bible) pre(r)m yea, couldn't be easier. Or one could perfectly well say the French Prime Minister. It ought also to be urged that we follow European custom and translate titles into English. No one in Europe ever addresses one of us as Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. Inwariably we are called Monsieur, Signora or Fraulein, or June 16, 1935‘ Illustration by George James Tetzel Wk . « 'Y . . . ¢ Menu is invariably “menyou,” and a waiter is called waiter, not gargon, by persons of good taste - Good Taste Today by EMILY POST Author of “Etiquette: The Blue Book of Social Usage,” “The Personality of a House,” Etc. whatever our title may be in the native tongue of the speaker. Why then must we consider it necessary to speak of Monsieur, too often distorted into monseer or mushur, instead of saying mister? Class 11 includes the words that are rated in the whole English speaking world as illiteracies, when mispronounced, because they are all composed of syllables that can be spelled — and therefore pronounced — in plain English. In the following examples it will be seen that the right pronunciation is just as easy to say as the wrong: Masseuse (woman) is mass-hers; masseur (man) is mass-her — emphasis is the same on both syllables. Bouquet is pronounced boo-kay (0o as in goose) not bo — to rhyme with go. Brassiere, distorted into the illiteracy of bruzeer is inexcusable since brass’yair scarcely changes the French spelling. Vaudeville is not vaw-dy-vil; vaude is pronounced voad —to rhyme with road; ville as veal, a meat;.voad-veal. Or Ameri- canize the second syllable — voad-vil. Chauffeur is not showfer, but showfur; accent both syllables equally or else slightly on the last. Amateur is not amachure. Say I “am at her"” house and you can't help pronouncing amateur perfectly. Or you can Americanize this by accenting the first syllable — I ‘‘am at her” house. Class III are stumbling blocks: The. first syllable of garage is gar as in garret, but rage has a soft g as in sponge. (We don't say spondge.) But I don't know how to Americanize this second syllable ex- cept as it might be spelled rajhe. The a sound in both syllables is as in rack. Demi-tasse is d’'me-tass — not easy, but why not say black coffee? And why not say underthings instead of lingerie mutilated into longer-ay. If you must say lingerie, the nearest sound is lin-jhe-ree, (“in’’ is like “an” in sang) jhe is again a soft g as in sponge. But best advice is translate it into ‘‘underthings.” Also difficult is fiance (masculine) or fiancee (feminine); both words are pro- nounced alike. The first syllable is fee (same as the fee, a doctor charges); the second has no English equivalent, but the nearest is the “an’” in want. The last syllable is say. But these syllables are only approximate. It would seem sensible to say betrothed — or the man (or girl) I'm going to marry. Class 1V is vitally important to those who broadcast — not only because the perfect pronunciation of proper names and the titles of songs tells every discriminating listener all about the social background of the one who broadcasts, but because most of us are greatly affected by the speech we hear. Of course it is not reasonable to expect the majority of us to pronounce foreign words with unconscious ease. Our country is too far separated from other countries to bring us into contact with the people of other nations. Except in Washington, we can live our whole lives through without having the conversation at table, or wherever we happen to be, turn even once into a language other than English —meaning ‘‘American’’ at that! Whether anyone who is full grown can change his natural speech and leave no tell- tale patches shining through, depends, I suppose, not only upon the innate sensitive- ness of his ear but upon his luck in being given a constant and admirable pattern. Beautiful speech is far more accurately a question of ear than of tongue. Certain people are marvelous mimics — meaning that they hear with per- fect memory the voice of the one they imitate. N This brings me to a subject that I have talked about many times. In fact, it is one that was dinned into my very unwilling ears when I was a child, but that I in turn have been dinning into the ears of others ever since. That is the advantage of teaching very little children at least one foreign language — and being at pains to see that they are not allowed to distort their own. The whole world knows of the marvelous advantages that Dr. Walter Damrosch has been giving to the millions of children who belong to his music appreciation hour. He is also giving them something else that is of as great, if not greater ‘‘early advantage'' than appreciation of music, and that is the oppor- tunity to hear — as only little children can — the true sound of foreign words. All the younger children are learning more than they — or even their parents, perhaps — know, in hearing the unending subtleties of sound that make up the names of composers and of their works pronounced as they should be. Copyright, 1935, by Emily Post