Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language

Linguistic purism and verbal hygiene 117
Appealing to reputable literary authorities was a problem. The classical
English authors were all criticized for solecisms by one grammarian or
another. Shakespeare, because of Ben Jonson’s evaluation of his ‘little learning’,
was expected to use vulgarisms. The ‘wrong’ use of prepositions was
employed:
even by Swift, Temple, Addison, and other writers of the highest reputation; some of
them, indeed, with such shameful impropriety as one must think must shock every
English ear, and almost induce the reader to suppose the writers to be foreigners.
(Baker 1779: 109)
Archbishop Robert Lowth 21 and American-born Lindley Murray 22 later
reported much the same. Of the classical languages, Greek was elevated to
the highest position, followed by Latin – ‘a Species of Greek somewhat
debased’ according to James Harris. 23 Romance languages were vulgar
corruptions of Latin; Saxon was generally regarded as barbaric, along with
other Germanic languages. Where necessary, authority lay with Latin grammar,
and this could always be appealed to as the objective arbiter. Thus
James Buchanan is unable to forgive the solecisms of Swift, Addison and
Pope: ‘Had they not the Rules of Latin Syntax to direct them?’ 24 Dryden
claimed to turn any doubtful phrase into Latin: thus most highest, used in the
Old Vulgate translation of the Psalms, was regarded as illogical; and although
some would allow it, perhaps as suitable for God alone, others
rejected it because maximus altissimus was inconceivable in Latin (at least
to them). Noah Webster was modern in espousing the norm of everyday
usage: ‘grammar is formed on language, and not language on grammar’
(1784). Nevertheless, he often relied on analogy, reason and true or fanciful
etymology; and he appealed to Latin when discussing whether or not the
preposition should accompany the interrogative pronoun in wh- questions,
and what form the wh- word should take (cf. Who were you speaking to? To
whom were you speaking?). 25
Prescriptive grammarians seeking to establish the Standard often failed to
conform to their own prescriptions. Archbishop Lowth’s Short Introduction to
English Grammar 26 states that strong verbs, like write and ride, should
distinguish between past tense and past participle forms. Lowth provided lists
of what he described as common mistakes committed, even by ‘some of our
best Writers’: 27
He begun, for he began; he run, for he ran; he drunk, for he drank: The Participle
being used instead of the Past Time. And much more frequently the Past Time instead
of the Participle: as, I had wrote, it was wrote, for I had written, it was written; I have
drank, for I have drunk; bore, for born; chose, for chosen; bid, for bidden; got for
gotten &c. This abuse has been long growing upon us, and is continually making
further incroachments.