Archaisms

The vocabulary of a language changes over the centuries. English has acquired new words throughout the ages. It has also of course lost words. And sometimes words are half-lost, or nearly lost. They disappear from popular general use, but turn up from time to time either in special circles with strong traditionalist leanings, or in the utterance of knowledgeable people who find them useful and, perhaps, irreplaceable. Where words stand for things once part of the environment but which have now disappeared from daily life, it is natural that they should get lost. We come across such words, say in reading Shakespeare, and when we discover that they refer to items of dress or armour long since discarded, we find the loss quite understandable. But words are also lost, not because the things they stood for have gone from the modern scene, but because they have been replaced by other words. We read Hamlet’s question, ‘Woo’t drink up eisel?’ and learn from the glossary that ‘eisel’ is vinegar, so the question is ‘Would you drink up vinegar?’ However, quite apart from nouns, which may stand for things no longer used, or for things for which we now have other names, there are words which we class as ‘archaisms’ for another reason. They have ceased to be used altogether, or ceased to be used much in general parlance. They sound quaint. Such is the adverb ‘eke’, meaning ‘also’ or ‘moreover’.

There are words which have not entirely disappeared from current usage yet which carry an archaic flavour. This archaic flavour is not strong enough to prevent our use of the words, but it is strong enough for us to hesitate before using them for fear of sounding affected and pretentious. Thus we may hesitate before using ‘albeit’ instead of ‘although’. We should think twice before using the verb ‘abide’. Similary we may hesitate before using the impersonal word ‘behove’. Perhaps that is a pity. ‘It behoves me to give you a grave warning’ lays emphasis on the duty and responsibility of the speaker, depersonalizing the rebuke.

Afew archaisms survive in common usage because they are found in memorable quotations. We still hear the expression ‘hoist with his own petard’, deriving from Shakespeare. Hamlet speaks of the irony of seeing an ‘enginer Hoist with his own petar’, that is struck by his own machine which is meant to blow a hole in a wall with gunpowder. This quotation has only recently been rendered disposable by the equally useful phrase about ‘scoring an own goal’. Another interesting survival is the use of the word ‘cudgel’ when we say ‘I must cudgel my brains’, meaning struggle to remember. A cudgel was a stick that could be used for beating people. The noun has gone but the verb lingers on in this one expression.

There is possible cause for regret over the loss of a word from general parlance only where it is not replaceable. Here we may cite the gradual disappearance of the words ‘whence’ and ‘whither’. ‘Whence’ is the equivalent of ‘from where’ and ‘whither’ is the equivalent of ‘to where’. We have replaced ‘Whence have you come?’ by ‘Where have you come from?’ (the change adding a word). We have replaced ‘Whither are you going?’ firstly by ‘Where are you going to?’ and then by ‘Where are you going?’

The word ‘where’ was once used in various compounds which have mostly ceased to be used. They include ‘whereat’, ‘whereby’, ‘wherefore’, ‘wherefrom’, ‘whereof’, ‘whereto’ and ‘wherewithal’. We still use the words ‘whereas’, ‘whereupon’ and ‘whereabouts’. We use the word ‘wherewithal’ in a semi-ironic tone of voice when we are short of cash (‘I haven’t got the wherewithal’). But otherwise it is chiefly in legal documents that the words survive. The usefulness of some of these words is made evident by the way lawyers fall back on them when seeking the maximum clarity of definition. It is also made evident when we ask ourselves what has replaced them. The means whereby I live’ has to become The means by which I live.’

The discerning writer may be able to use an archaism from time to time, but clearly it is desirable to exercise restraint in that respect. People may get away with a lavish use of archaisms in the world of ceremonial officialdom. Anywhere else it will seem comic.

From “The English Vocabulary”

Translate the following sentences paying attention to converted words and word combinations in italics:

1. Through London streets yesterday the king’s funeral procession took two-and-half hours to slow-march from Westminster to Paddington station. (“DW”)

2. We should not porch-porch the idea that this country should annex Egypt in order to safeguard the communications with India... so say the Tories now and so they went on saying for years on end.(“DW”)

3. The die-hards are in fact nothing but have-beens.(“DW”)

4. The whys and wherefores of a war in which children must die have never been made clear. (“DW”)

5. We must live in the now and pursue a constructive policy. (“The Times”)

6. Hiroshima was atombombed without the slightest mercy.

7. This is a robber budget that the Tories want to introduce. (“DW”)

8. Weigh the fors and the against and the decision will be clear as daylight. (“DW”)

9. She watched her son wolfing his meal. (J. Hanley)

10. We are inching forward to our target yet progressing we are. (“DW”)

11. It was a novel experience to find himself head-lined.(J. London)

12. Don’t be yanked into war. (“DW”)

13. Within the offices were newly plastered, newly painted, newly papered, newly floorclothed, newly tabled, newly chaired, newly fitted up in every way with goods that were substantial and expensive. (Ch. Dickens)

14. How many a time have we mourned over the dead body of Julius Caeser and to be’d and not to be’d in this very room. (J.Austen)

15. The number of signatures to the Appeal will snowball rapidly. (“DW”)

16. The short-time working which began in Lancashire has snowballed into a large-scale slump in the cotton industry. (“Daily Mirror”)

17. Both sides Ink Treaty.

TOPIC 7. TRANSLATION ON THE LEVEL OF WORDS

Дата добавления: 2015-07-10