It has been my endeavour in this work to represent English Grammar not as a set of stiff dogmatic precepts, according to which some things are correct and others absoutely wrong, but as something living and developing under continual fluctuations and undulations, something that is founded on the past and prepares the way for the future, something that is not always consistent or perfect, but progressing and perfectable—in one word, human. The essence of language is activity, the purpose of which is to communicate thoughts and feelings, and as man is no machine, he is during this activity drawn now in this and now in that direction, while it is not always easy or possible to calculate exactly the relative strength of all the various attractions at work in each single case. The full purport of these remarks will, perhaps, be seen in following instalments of this work with greater distinctness than in the present volume, which deals only with phonology and orthography. But even here one may observe how each linguistic phenomenon inevitably presents blurred outlines, perfectly sharp delineations being found rather in our imperfect attempts to interpret nature than in nature itself. In a language everything is linked together with everything else, and it is impossible to treat sounds separately without regard to the significations those sounds are intended to express; thus it happens that even syntactical phenomena are here and there touched in this volume.
I have tried, whenever I could, to go to the sources themselves, and have taken as few facts and as few theories as possible at second hand. Of course I do not pretend to have been independent of my predecessors, to whom I owe very much indeed. But in consequence of my method of work I may have overlooked much valuable information—and I must confess that at no time have I been a diligent reader of doctors' dissertations—still I hope that nothing of great importance has escaped me. On the other hand, in spite of all that has been written on historical English phonology, I have now and then enjoyed the feeling of treading on virgin soil, thus especially in chapters V and IX. I have also utilized some old authorities, de Castro, Elphinston, Batchelor, and Hill, whose works, important as they are, have been overlooked by most recent investigators. I may also claim to have done something towards a more just appreciation of the extremely valuable phonetic analysis and transcriptions contained in Hart's works.
[Otto Jespersen. 1909. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part I, Sounds and Spellings, pp. v et seq. The complete Grammar, consisting of seven volumes, was completed posthumously in 1949.]
[Corrected typo.]This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,
Probably a typo seeing as to which letters are adjacent to the u key on a Qwerty keyboard. Although, knowing Asa, it could very well have been intended to be jocular.
Asa, the Wonderful, please stop picking on such a delightful Wordcrafter as yourself!
I am a terrible proof-reader. I don't know how that talent is developed.
I so agree with his first sentence, though I suspect Mr. Strunk and Mr. White would frown at its length. I have a new prescriptivist boss, and I suspect, before long, I will be asking the board for advice on how to answer her. So far she hasn't gotten to me, but to some of my colleagues she has complained about lack of commas, etc., and these were all situations where you could, or could not, have the punctuation she insisted on. If she starts on me, I may shove Jespersen's books where the sun don't shine!
