Swift's third class embraced a number of words "invented," he said, "by certain pretty fellows, such as banter, bamboozle, country put, and kidney." Some of these were struggling for the vogue; others were now in possession of it. "I have done my utmost," he added, "for some years past to stop the progress of mob and banter, but have been plainly borne down by numbers and betrayed by those who promised to assist me." Of none of these did his opposition bring about then the disuse. . . .
Today's Dictators of Language
The truth is, were everything known about good usage with the positiveness with which assertions about it are made, the constant controversies which arise in regard to it would be a simple impossibility. In discussions of it, what is called reason is often only another name for ignorance. The "insufficiently worked-out forms of speech, sometimes mistakenly honored under the name of idioms," prove to be insufficiently understood forms of speech which the verbal critic condemns because he knows nothing of their nature and history. In consequence there has never really been the slightest ground for disputing the dictum of Horace when rightly understood. It embodies nothing more than the result of universal experience. There are modifications, or, rather, explanations, to which it is subject; but its general truth cannot be successfully questioned.
The standard of speech is therefore the usage of the cultivated. Such men are the absolute dictators of language. They are the lawgivers whose edicts it is the duty of the grammarian to record. What they agree upon is correct; what they shun it is expedient to shun, even if not wrong in itself to employ. Words coined by those outside of the class to which these men belong do not pass into the language as a constituent part of it until sanctioned by their approbation and use. Their authority, both as regards the reception or rejection of locutions of any sort, is final. It hardly needs to be said that "the man in the street" is not only no dictator of usage, but that he has no direct influence upon the preservation of the life of any word or phrase. This depends entirely upon its adoption by great writers. If these fail to accept a new locution, it is certain to die eventually and as a general rule very speedily.
On the other hand, the purist is as little a final authority. He may protest against the employment by famous authors of certain words or constructions. He may declare these opposed to reason, contrary to the analogies of the language, or tending to destroy distinctions which should be maintained. If they heed his remonstrances, well and good. If they disregard them, he mistakes his position when he pretends to sit in judgment upon the decisions of his masters.
Knowledge of Good Usage
The establishment of this dictum, with the limitation of its meaning, leads directly to another conclusion. Good usage is not something to be evolved from one's own consciousness, or to be deduced by some process of reasoning; it is something to be ascertained. It must be learned just as language itself is learned. Furthermore, there is no short-cut to its acquisition. Grammars may in some instances help us; in some instances they do help us, but in others they sometimes do just the reverse. But in no case can they ever be appealed to as final authorities. There is one way and but one way of attaining to the end desired as a theoretical accomplishment, and fortunately it is a course open to every one. Knowledge of good usage can be acquired only by associating in life with the best speakers or in literature with the best writers. The latter resource is always available. It is the practice and consent of the great authors that determine correctness of speech. The pages of these are accessible to all. If they differ among themselves about details, choice is allowable until a general agreement settles in course of time upon one mode of expression as preferable to another or to any others proposed.
Whatever Is in Usage Is Right
So much for the general principle. But there is a still further limitation of the sense of Horace's dictum. When we say that usage is the standard of speech, we mean not merely good usage, but present good usage. Neither the grammar nor the vocabulary of one age is precisely the grammar or vocabulary of another. The language of a later period may not vary much from the language of an earlier one, but it will vary somewhat. It is not necessarily better or worse; it is simply different. The fact that the good usage of one generation may be distinctly improper usage in a generation which follows is frequently exemplified in the meanings given to individual words, and sometimes in the words themselves.
This we all accept as a matter of course. But the same statement can be made just as truly of grammatical forms and constructions. In the case of these the variations between different periods do not impress themselves so much upon our attention because they are comparatively few. Still they occur. Ignorance of this fact or indifference to it has often led to the denunciation of the writers of the past as being guilty of solecisms or barbarisms, when they have done nothing more than conform to the usage of their own time. If such criticism be accepted as just, we in turn shall be left at the mercy of our descendants. We shall be reproached for employing words in senses they do not approve, or for resorting to forms and constructions which they have ceased to look upon as correct. If we recognize that whatever is in usage is right, we must be prepared to go a step further and concede that whatever was was right.
Thomas R. Lounsbury's The Standard of Usage in English was published in 1908 by Harper & Brothers Publishers.
