Курсовая работа: Archaisms in literature
Here in this text we still observe the considerable remnants of German language influence – all the nouns are written with a capital latter. Verbal forms diverge from Modern English norms - being come instead of having come, clipping of the letter ‘e’ in the past form of regular verbs by means of apostrophizing etc. Comparing two texts, one – written approximately in 16th century and another – in late 17th , I’ve made out that English has considerably changed during such a short period of time. It made a long way to its today’s analytical system.
3 Archaisms in literature and mass media
Deliberate usage of archaisms
Occasional archaism is always a fault, conscious or unconscious. There are, indeed, a few writers—Lamb is one of them—whose uncompromising terms, 'Love me, love my archaisms', are generally accepted; but they are taking risks that a novice will do well not to take. As to unconscious archaism, it might be thought that such a thing could scarcely exist: to employ unconsciously a word that has been familiar, and is so no longer, can happen to few. Yet charitable readers will believe that in the following sentence demiss has slipped unconsciously from a learned pen:
He perceived that the Liberal ministry had offended certain influential sections by appearing too demiss or too unenterprising in foreign affairs.—Bryce.
The guilt of such peccadilloes as this may be said to vary inversely as the writer's erudition; for in this matter the learned may plead ignorance, where the novice knows too well what he is doing. It is conscious archaism that offends, above all the conscious archaisms of the illiterate: the historian's It should seem, even the essayist's You shall find, is less odious, though not less deliberate, than the ere, oft, aught, thereanent, I wot, I trow, and similar ornaments, with which amateurs are fond of tricking out their sentences. This is only natural. An educated writer's choice falls upon archaisms less hackneyed than the amateur's; he uses them, too, with more discretion, limiting his favourites to a strict allowance, say, of once in three essays. The amateur indulges us with his whole repertoire in a single newspaper letter of twenty or thirty lines, and—what is worse—cannot live up to the splendours of which he is so lavish: charmed with the discovery of some antique order of words, he selects a modern slang phrase to operate upon; he begins a sentence with ofttimes, and ends it with a grammatical blunder; aspires to albeit, and achieves howbeit. This list begins with the educated specimens, but lower down the reader will find several instances of this fatal incongruity of style; fatal, because the culprit proves himself unworthy of what is worthless. For the vilest of trite archaisms has this latent virtue, that it might be worse; to use it, and by using it to make it worse, is to court derision.
A coiner or a smuggler shall get off tolerably well.—Lamb.
The same circumstance may make one person laugh, which shall render another very serious.—Lamb.
You shall hear the same persons say that George Barnwell is very natural, and Othello is very natural.—Lamb.
Don Quixote shall last you a month for breakfast reading.—Spectator.
Take them as they come, you shall find in the common people a surly indifference.—Emerson.
The worst of making a mannerism of this shall is that, after the first two or three times, the reader is certain to see it coming; for its function is nearly always the same—to bring in illustrations of a point already laid down.
Some of us, like Mr. Andrew Lang for instance, cannot away with a person who does not care for Scott or Dickens.—Spectator.
One needs not praise their courage.—Emerson.
What turn things are likely to take if this version be persisted in is a matter for speculation.—Times.
If Mr. Hobhouse's analysis of the vices of popular government be correct, much more would seem to be needed.—Times.
Mr. Bowen has been, not recalled, but ordered to Washington, and will be expected to produce proof, if any he have, of his charges against Mr. Loomis.—Times.
It were futile to attempt to deprive it of its real meaning.—Times.
It were idle to deny that the revolutionary movement in Russia is nowhere followed with keener interest than in this country.—Times.
It were idle to deny that coming immediately after the Tangier demonstration it assumes special and unmistakable significance.—Times.
He is putting poetic 'frills', if the phrase be not too mean, on what is better stated in the prose summary of the argument.—Times.
Regarded as a counter-irritant to slang, archaism is a failure. Frills is ten times more noticeable for the prim and pompous be.
Under them the land is being rapidly frivolled away, and, unless immediate action be taken, the country will be so tied that...—Times.
That will depend a good deal on whether he be shocked by the cynicism of the most veracious of all possible representations...—H. James.
We may not quote the lengthy passage here: it is probably familiar to many readers.—Times.
'We must not'. Similarly, the modern prose English for if I be, it were, is if I am, it would be.
'I have no particular business at L.,' said he; 'I was merely going thither to pass a day or two.'—Borrow.
I am afraid you will hardly be able to ride your horse thither in time to dispose of him.—Borrow.
It will necessitate my recurring thereto in the House of Commons.—Spectator.