Improved. Occupied.
Ingen. Indian.
Nigger. Negro.
Lengthy. Long.
Progressing. Passing.
Tote. Pull.
Boss. Master.
Chunk. A small horse.
Tarnation. Annoying or excessive.
Awful. Unpleasant, very.
Trade. Barter.
All these words are discussed at other places in the present Supplement.
2 The Art Journal Catalogue of the Paris Universal Exhibition, edited by S. C. Hall. F. S. A.; London, 1868, p. 122. For this I am indebted to Mrs. James W. Craig, of Scituate, Mass.
1 Harold Child, in The Cambridge History of English Literature; New York, 1916, p. 278.
2 A Diary in America, With Remarks on Its Inhabitants; New York, 1839, and Second Series of a Diary in America; Philadelphia, 1840. I am informed by Dr. P. I. Nixon, of San Antonio, Tex., that Marryat is also credited in the Southwest with the authorship of a book called Travels and Adventures of Monsieur Violet in California, Sonora and Western Texas, published in 1849, but there is no record that he was ever in that region and he had died in England in 1848. Dr. Nixon says (private communication, July 15, 1937): “Raines, in his Bibliography of Texas, dismisses the book with this comment: ‘A sensational story, with a strange mixture of truth and falsehood; the truth borrowed from Gregg’s Commerce of the Prairies and Kendall’s Santa Fé Expedition; the falsehoods being original, perhaps.’ ” A Narrative of the Texan Santa Fé Expedition, by George W. Kendall (1809–67) was published in 1841, and Commerce of the Prairies, by Josiah Gregg (1806–50) in 1844.
1 His own evidence showed that this was far from true.
2 Neither the NED nor the DAE records these picturesque verbs, but Webster’s New International, 1934, lists fourble as a noun in the sense of a stand of oil-well pipe of four lengths.
3 The DAE’s first American example of to admire in this sense is from one of the letters of Benjamin Franklin, c. 1770. The word was first recorded in England in 1645, but soon afterward was reduced to dialect, as indeed it has been reduced in the United States. Pickering defined it as “to like very much; to be very fond of” and said of it: “This verb is much used in New England in expressions like the following: ‘I should admire to go to such a place; I should admire to have such a thing, &c.’ It is never thus used by the English; and among us it is confined to the language of conversation.”
1 The DAE says that ugly was used in this sense in England before it has been found in America. It is recorded by Dunglison, who calls it a New Englandism. Pickering does the same, and says that it and the compound ugly-tempered “are both heard only among the illiterate.” In my youth in Maryland ugly was widely used in the sense of ill-tempered, especially as applied to horses.
2 The DAE’s first example of the use of bad in the sense of sorry is from Marryat’s book, and it does not record the other senses at all. Witherspoon, Pickering and Dunglison all overlooked them, as did Humphreys.
3 Witherspoon, Pickering, Humphreys and Dunglison all overlooked mean, and the DAE’s first example is from Marryat. The DAE defines it, in to feel mean, as “to be ashamed, feel guilty; to feel ill or uncomfortable,” and marks it an Americanism. It was used in both senses by Mark Twain in Sketches Old and New. Webster’s New International calls it “colloq. U.S.,” and notes also a slang meaning, as in “He pitches a mean curve.”
4 The DAE calls handsome an Americanism in two senses — “of any aspect of a landscape; satisfying to the eye; of pleasing appearance,” and as used in the phrase to do the handsome thing. Its first example of the former is dated 1773, and of the latter 1796. Pickering says of the word in the former sense: “An obliging correspondent observes that [it] ‘is here applied to almost everything,’ and then adds (though in rather too strong terms) that ‘in England it is used only in reference to the human countenance.’ ” He says that the Quarterly Review noted it as an Americanism in a review of the record of the Lewis and Clarke expedition. Dunglison said of it in 1829: “Handsome is more extensively used in this country than in England. There they would rarely or never speak of a handsome garden, although the term is now more extensively applied there than formerly.” Harriet Martineau said in her Society in America; London, 1838, Vol. III, p. 83: “[The Americans] say … that Webster made a handsome speech in the Senate; that a lady talks handsomely (eloquently); that a book sells handsomely. A gentleman asked me in the Catskill Mountains whether I thought the sun handsomer there than at New York.”
5 No other observer of American usage reports to stimulate in this sense. Probably Marryat heard it as a nonce-word, or imagined it. Pickering, in 1816, called awful, in the sense of disagreeable, ugly, a New Englandism, and noted its use as a general intensive. “In New England,” he said, “many people would call a disagreeable medicine awful; an ugly woman, an awful-looking woman; a perverse, ill-natured child that disobeys its parents would be said to behave awfully, &c. This word, however, is never used except in conversation, and is far from being so common in the seaports now as it was some years ago.” He added that John Lambert, in Travels Through Lower Canada and the United States of America; London, 1810, Vol. II, p. 505, reported that to “the country people of Vermont and other New England States … everything that creates surprise is awful: What an awful wind! awful hole! awful hill! awful mouth! awful nose! &c.” The DAE calls awful, in the general sense of very unpleasant or disagreeable, an Americanism and traces it to 1809. In the sense of very great, without any connotation of the unpleasant, it is also an Americanism, but seems to have come in later, for the DAE’s first example is dated 1842. Bartlett says that this second sense, in his time, was “ peculiar to the West.”
1 To suspicion still survives in the vulgar speech, but to opinion must have been rare, for no other observer records it.
2 In this situation considerable is traced by the DAE to 1722 and called an Americanism. Followed by of it was also in wide use, and that use was confined to the United States. Witherspoon, 1781, says that considerable of was then peculiar to “the Northern parts.” Theodoric Romeyn Beck, in his Notes on Mr. Pickering’s Vocabulary, 1829, says that the locution was “formerly used in a similar way in England,” and notes that it had appeared in the bitterly anti-American Quarterly Review in a review of a book by Southey. Dunglison marks it “New England.”
3 The DAE records no use of great in this way before Marryat, but lists another and earlier peculiarly American use of great, as a noun, in “Sloop sunk at Boston and spoiled a great of our English goods,” 1724. This use seems to survive in dialect. Sherwood, 1837, said of great as an intensive: “This word is used variously — great Christian for pious man; great horse is applied to a small pony, meaning a horse of good qualities and bottom; great plantation, a fertile one.” Pickering did not note it. Gal is apparently an Americanism. It was listed as an “impropriety” in an American grammar-book published in 1795, but the NED’s earliest English example, marked “vulgar or dial.”, is dated 1842. It is listed by Humphreys, 1815, and Sherwood, 1837.
4 There were various early forms of the word — absquatulate, absquatalize, absquatiate, absquattle, absquatelate, absquatilate, absquotulate, absquotilate — of these, absquatulate finally prevailed. Mathews, in The Beginnings of American English, p. 114, defines it as meaning to go away. It is not listed by the early writers on Americanisms, and seems to have been relatively new at the time Marryat noted it.
1 Pickering says that the free use of some in America was borrowed from the Scotch, and quotes the Monthly Magazine, May, 1800, in proof. He marks it “New England” and “used chiefly by the illiterate.” He gives these specimens: He is some better than he was; it rains some; it snows some. The DAE’s first example of its use as an adjective is dated 1845. It survives in full vigor, and has given rise to two very familiar locutions, going some and and then some.
2 There seems to be an impression that how was borrowed from the Indians, but there is no evidence that they ever
used it in the sense of what. According to John Bradbury, whose Travels in the Interior of America in the Years 1809, 1810 and 1811 was published in 1817, it signified, among them, come on or let us begin, and according to George Catlin, writing c. 1837, it was “their word for yes.” The DAE marks it an Americanism in the sense of “an interrogative used in asking for the repetition of something not quite understood,” but traces it no further back than Marryat. In the form of a simple greeting, also an Americanism, it is traced to 1817.
3 To guess, as we shall see, was not an Americanism, but it survived in America after it had become obsolete in England, and is now listed by the NED as “U.S. colloq.” The DAE runs it back to 1805, in American use, in the sense of to suppose, expect, judge, or believe after consideration, and to 1816 in the sense of to purpose, intend or expect. Thornton’s examples extend from 1812 to 1869. Pickering quoted an example from John Lambert’s Travels Through Lower Canada and the United States; London, 1810. To reckon, said Pickering, was “used in some of the Southern States,” Dunglison, 1829, ascribed it to Virginia. On Sept. 30, 1844 the following appeared in the Spirit of the Times (Philadelphia): “The New Englander guesses, the Virginians and Pennsylvanians think, the Kentuckian calculates, the man from Alabama reckons.” In American Speech and Foreign Listeners, American Speech, Dec., 1940, pp. 448–49, John T. Krumpelmann snowed that this was lifted from A Night on the Banks of the Tennessee, Blackwood’s Magazine, Sept., 1844, pp. 278 ff, and that the Blackwood paper was a translation of the second chapter of George Howard’s Esq. Brautfahrt, by Charles Sealsfield (Karl Postl), published in German at Stuttgart in 1843. Sealsfield (1793–1864) was an Austrian priest who came to the United States in 1822, and wrote several books on his travels.
1 An early, and now obsolete use of to stump, in the sense of to challenge, is noted by Humphreys. The DAE traces it to 1766, and calls it an Americanism. In the sense of to confuse or baffle the verb is traced to 1828, and in that of to electioneer to 1838. In both these latter senses it is also an Americanism. So is the noun stump in the sense of hustings: the DAE traces it to 1775.
2 To fork is not listed by the DAE, but to fork on, in the sense of “to appropriate to one’s self,” is in A Collection of College Words and Phrases, by B. H. Hall; Cambridge, Mass., 1851.
3 Matthew XXIII, 24.
4 In this sense to strike is listed by none of the lexicons as an Americanism.
5 The DAE lists this as an Americanism. Its first example is from J. P. Kennedy’s Swallow Barn, 1832.
6 To clear out is a nautical term. The DAE’s first example of its use in a non-nautical sense is dated 1792. In that sense it is an Americanism. The NED lists to quit, in the sense of making off, as “dial, and U.S.” The DAE’s first example of it is dated 1833. The NED lists to put, in the same sense, as “obs. exc. U.S. colloq.”, but the DAE finds no trace of it before Marryat’s example. Save in the phrase he put off it is seldom heard today. To shut, without up, is not listed by any of the authorities. Probably Marryat actually heard to shut up.
7 Whether or not this is an Americanism I do not know. No authority so lists it.
8 Dander is found in various English dialects. Its origin is uncertain, but it may come from dandruff.
9 The DAE calls wrathy an Americanism, and traces it to 1828. In Baltimore, in the 80s, it was in common use among boys, but was always pronounced rossy.
10 One of the grotesque tropes characteristic of American in the days of the great Western migration. The DAE’s first example is from C. A. Davis’s Letters of Jack Downing (not to be confused with those of Seba Smith), 1834.
1 To slope, in this sense, has not been traced before Marryat, but the DAE presents later examples. It does not list to splunge, nor does Pickering.
2 Seldom so called in America after 1800, when the term began to be supplanted by barber-shop. The usual English form is barber’s-shop.
3 Marryat then proceeds to tell the familiar story about the coon that, on being treed by a famous hunter, cried “Don’t shoot! I’ll come down.” He makes the hunter Captain Martin Scott, of the United States Army; usually he is David Crockett. The abbreviation coon for raccoon is traced by the DAE to 1742. Its first example of the application of the term to a human being is from W. G. Simms’s Guy Rivers, 1834. It also appeared in A. B. Longstreet’s Georgia Scenes, 1835. Apparently its use to designate a Negro did not come in until the 80s.
4 Marryat’s explanation here is hardly convincing. Nasty is but one of many derogatory adjectives that Americans have used, by trope, in commendatory senses. The DAE quotes the Knickerbocker Magazine, 1834, as explaining that to sling a nasty foot then meant to dance exceedingly well, and that “she is a nasty-looking girl” meant that she was “a splendid woman.” In later days mean and wicked have been widely used in the same sense.
5 i.e., bayous.
6 Here again Marryat fails as an etymologist. It is more probable that, in the sense of baggage, the word was borrowed from the Dutch. The DAE’s first example is dated 1805.
1 Marryat was here making contact with tall talk, which was to flourish in the South and West after his visit. There are specimens of it in Richard H. Thornton’s American Glossary; Philadelphia, 1912, Vol. II, pp. 969 ff.
2 The DAE traces City of Brotherly Love to 1799; it is a translation, of course, of the Greek Philadelphia. City of Elms is not traced beyond 1843. Cincinnati began to call itself the Queen City in the 1830s; when Buffalo adopted Queen City of the Lakes I do not know.
1 Feb., 1930, p. 250.
2 And also in Ireland. On Oct. 9, 1926 The American Slanguage appeared as the heading on a letter in the Irish Statesman (Dublin).
3 Revised ed.; New York, 1855, p. 122.
1 Aug. 3, 1943.
2 See AL4, pp. 29 ff.
3 The King’s English, editorial page, Feb. 12.
4 The DAE overlooks this verb-phrase, but it is almost surely an Americanism, for the much more comprehensive NED does not list it, and it is not in Partridge. The DAE also omits to check out, meaning to leave a hotel, and the nouns, checkup and check-off, the latter in the sense of the deduction of a worker’s union dues from his pay. It traces to pass in one’s checks to 1869, to hand them in to 1870, and to cash them in to 1880. Berrey and Van den Bark, in their American Thesaurus of Slang; New York, 1942, define to check up on as to investigate, to examine. They also list to check out, to check in and to check up with. Partridge lists to cash, pass or hand in one’s checks, calls all three forms Americanisms, and says they began to creep into English c. 1875. He adds that during World War I the English soldiers used to get one’s checks in the sense of to be killed, and also in that of “to receive one’s discharge, especially from a medical board.” He says that to take check was formerly used in England in the sense of to be offended, but indicates that it is now obsolete. So is to check up or to check it up in the sense of to enter a theatre on some other person’s discarded pass-out check. Partridge says that the English busmen have been using checker in the sense of an inspector since c. 1925. It is much older in the United States, though the DAE does not list it. Berrey and Van den Bark show that checker is used in the sense of an employer’s spy or spotter in many industries. It is also used by deep-sea fishermen to designate a fish-pen on deck, and by gamblers to designate a silver dollar. Checker-upper is used in two senses — that of a superintendent and that of a chronic dissenter, or no-man.
1 Of O.K. he said: “From the slang of the American bargee it has advanced to the favor of the diplomatist.” There is, of course, no such thing as an American bargee: we call him a bargeman. By and large is an old nautical phrase which seems to have come into general use in the United States in the pre-Civil War era. To demote is traced by the DAE to c. 1891 and marked an Americanism. It does not list to contact, but there can be little doubt that it originated in the United States.
2 English is Good Enough, Nov. 9, 1941.
1 Casual Comments, April 8, 1942. Falkirk is a sizeable town in
Scotland, midway between Edinburgh and Glasgow. On July 22, 1298 it was the scene of a battle in which the celebrated William Wallace, leading the Scots, was defeated by an English army under King Edward I. The Scots of today, though no right-thinking Englishman admits that they speak English, are commonly fervent defenders of it against American influence.
2 The DAE hesitates to call so long an Americanism, but the first English example is dated 1865, and Walt Whitman was using the phrase in his 1860 edition of Leaves of Grass.
3 The Conquering Tongue, London Spectator, Feb. 5, 1943, reprinted in Encore, Sept., 1943, p. 351. Brogan is professor of political science at Cambridge, but his interests are by no means confined to that lugubrious discipline. He spent some time at Harvard and knows the United States well, and a large part of his writing is devoted to explaining Americans to Britons and vice versa. His books include Government of the People: a Study of the American Political System; London, 1933; U.S.A.: An Outline of the Country, Its People and Institutions; London, 1941; The English People: Impressions and Observations; New York, 1943, and The American Character; New York, 1944.
1 There is some discussion of the reaction of later British travelers to American speechways in Nevins, but his book is mainly devoted to other matters. There is more in As Others See Us, by John Graham Brooks; New York, 1908. The subject is barely alluded to in The American Impact on Great Britain, 1898–1914, by Richard Heathcote Heindel; Philadelphia, 1940, otherwise a very valuable work.
2 For the history of this book, and of the attempt of an American, G. Washington Moon, to refute it, see AL4, p. 27, n. 2.
3 I borrow this quotation from an article by James Thurber in the New Yorker, May 13, 1939, p. 49.
1 Jan. 8 and June 4, 1870. I am indebted for this reference, and for the one following, to Dr. Richard H. Heindel.
2 There were, however, stalwarts who kept up the clamour, Kaiser or no Kaiser. Thus, when Percival Pollard published his Their Day in Court, in 1910, a reviewer for the Academy (May 28, p. 511), in a generally favorable notice of it, added: “It is unfortunate for Mr. Pollard that he should be an American because, do as he will, he is unable to get rid of the vulgarities which attach to American methods of thinking and American methods of writing.” As a matter of fact, Pollard had an English father and a German mother, and was born at Greifswald in Pomerania.
American Language Supplement 1 Page 20