« AnteriorContinuar »
offer no objective basis for a discussion of their work. The translators are said to belong to only two of the nationalities represented in Spanish America, and we do not know to what local influences or literary currents they have been subjected that might account for the remarkable disparity between their use of these forms and that of well-known writers whose works are accessible. No information is afforded as to whether these translators have any literary standing either in or out of Spanish America. Nor does it appear what bearing the number of words to a page has on such usage. In the absence of the original the only basis for discussion is the relative use shown by the actual number of instances occurring.
The inferences drawn from the facts set forth seem much greater than these facts warrant. The assertion that the Spanish American does not feel the need of avoiding the recurrence of the -ra form, or the need of an alternation for the sake of variety, is not an inevitable inference. Much less do the facts adduced support the very large conclusion that the -se form is "obviously passing out of general use in Spanish America."
At the time this article came to hand, the present writer had on his desk a half-dozen volumes of Colombian books. An examination of them did not yield any confirmation of Professor Dale's conclusions. The first taken up consisted of two essays, one the introduction to Eugenio Díaz's novel Manuela, the other an introduction to the poems of Gregorio Gutiérrez González. Both were written by Dr. Salvador Camacho Roldán of Bogotá. In the former the -se form only is used, three times in all; in the latter the -se form is used four times, the -ra five times. In an article by Dr. J. M. Marroquín on the historian Restrepo the -ra appears twenty-nine times, the -se form fifteen times. In an article on the statesman Robles, by Antonio José Iregui, the -ra form is used eleven times, the -se form eighteen times. In the introduction to the poems of Julio Arboleda, author of the epic Gonzalo de Oyón, which is by Miguel Antonio Caro, of whom Menéndez y Pelayo said that he was unsurpassed by any prose writer in America, the -ra form appears ten times, the -se form forty times. Lack of time has not permitted a continuation of the investigation among Colombian writers, but the facts are quite different from the generalization about the decay and speedy disappearance of the -se form.
In order to secure a wider view of the situation, examination was made of some collections of Spanish-American stories. One of
het the latest of these is Wilkins' Antología de Cuentos Americanos. It pre contains selections from twenty different writers, of whom seven were from Argentina, three from Mexico, two each from Cuba, a Chile, and Uruguay, and one each from Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Peru. The total of uses of the -ra form was fifty-two, To of which nineteen came from the Mexican writers; the total of the lita -se forms used was twenty-six, of which eight were employed by the ta Argentine writers, who used six of the -ra form. (The uses of the pluperfect subjunctive as well as of the imperfect subjunctive are i counted.) The ratio in these twenty writers is just two to one.
The Colombian writers named above may be considered as of the scholarly type and of an older generation. Those named in the Antología were born at dates ranging from 1832 to 1895. Among the them are such well-known names as those of Ricardo Palma, Amado is Nervo, and Manuel Ugarte. The result is not essentially different upp in either case.
An inspection of Coester's Cuentos de la América Española shows that fourteen writers are represented, of whom Argentine, Peru, and Venezuela furnished two each, Chile three, Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, Uruguay, and Costa Rica one each. Thirty-three inDa stances of the -ra form appear, of which nineteen are in the Chilean writers. Nineteen instances of the -se form appear, of which seven are in the Chilean selections. The proportions are 63 per cent and 36 per cent, which is less than twice as many for the -ra form.
An examination of Turrell's Spanish-American Short Stories was ion also made. In this, five writers were represented, i.e., two from Argentina, one each from Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela. There were found thirty-one uses of the -ra form and twenty of the -se. Of the former, thirteen appear in the Mexican writer, and fifteen in the two Argentinians. Of the latter, seventeen are found in the Mexican writer. Thus we have 60 per cent of the -ra form to 39 per cent of the -se form. The present writer had occasion to follow the books named by the article on La Literatura Colombiana by Antonio Gómez Restrepo in the Revue Hispanique for 1918, p. 79. There are in it thirty-six instances of the use of the -ra form and nineteen of the -se form. Hence it seems that Professor Dale's conclusions need a better foundation than he has provided for them.
BRIEF ARTICLES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
THE LINGUISTIC SOCIETY OF AMERICA
The Linguistic' Society of America held its Second Annual Meeting, the first since the Foundation Meeting, at the University of Chicago and Cornell University during the last days of December, 1925. This unusual holding of the meeting in two places was the result of a desire to co-operate with other societies: for at Chicago the Modern Language Association was holding its sessions on December 29-31, and the American Philological Association was meeting at Cornell on the same days. The Linguistic Society accordingly met at Chicago on December 28 and 29, holding a joint meeting with the Modern Language Association on the evening of December 29; it met at Cornell for a joint session with the Philological Association on the afternoon of December 31. Record of the attendance of sixty-five members was secured, of whom three were present both at Chicago and at Ithaca.
The reports of the year's work showed that the Society had secured 323 members, besides a number of library subscriptions and exchanges for the publications; it had established a quarterly journal, Language, of which the fourth issue was then in the mails; it had established a series of Language Monographs, of which the first had been printed abroad and was about to be distributed as a publication of 1925. These publications amounted to 162 pages of journal and 48 pages of monograph, an amount which it is confidently expected will be doubled or tripled in 1926. Naturally, in the first year, there was difficulty in making business arrangements speedily and in securing copy for immediate publication. At least two monographs have already been accepted for the publications of 1926, and the March issue of Language will contain in the neighborhood of 100 pages. Among the papers that will appear there, and in later issues, will be many of the communications presented at the recent meeting.
These communications were of the greatest variety and of unusual interest, as was evidenced by the lively discussion after their reading, as well as by the faithful attendance at the sessions, even when they lasted until within a few minutes of the luncheon or dinner hour. No better commentary on the breadth of interest among linguistic scholars in America can be given than the list of the speakers and their subjects:
Professor O. F. Emerson, Western Reserve University, "Associational Changes in English as Affecting the Case Relations."
Professor Edward Prokosch, Bryn Mawr College, "The Phonetic Drift of the Germanic Vowel System."
Professor Robert J. Kellogg, Ottawa University (Ottawa, Kansas), "Was there a Helleno-Asianic Group of Indo-European Languages?" Professor Edward Sapir, University of Chicago, "A Comparative Study of Athabascan Phonology."
Professor E. C. Hills, University of California, "The History of the Forms of Spanish Patronymics in -z."
Professor E. H. Sturtevant, Yale University, “Some Possibe Hittite Contributions to Indo-European Comparative Grammar."
Professor Leonard Bloomfield, Ohio State University, “A Set of Postulates for
Professor G. M. Bolling, Ohio State University, "Specimen of a Homeric
Dr. Thomas F. Cummings, Biblical Institute (New York City), “An Evaluation of the International Phonetic Association's Alphabet and of 'Standard English.'
Dr. A. R. Nykl, of Evanston, Illinois, "The Vigesimal System of Counting in Asia, Europe, and America."
Professor Samuel Kroesch, University of Minnesota, “Analogy as a Factor in Semantic Change."
Professor E. K. Maxfield, Washington and Jefferson College, "Suggestions
Professor H. H. Vaughan, University of California, “Italian Dialects in the
Professor Roland G. Kent, University of Pennsylvania, "The Textual Criti-
Professor Mark H. Liddell, Purdue University, "Stress Pronunciation in
Professor J. F. Mountford, Cornell University, "Some Neglected Evidence
Professor Franklin Edgerton, University of Pennsylvania, "The Accusative
Professor Roland G. Kent, University of Pennsylvania, "The Inscription of
Professor E. H. Sturtevant, Yale University, "Concerning the Influence of
Greek on Vulgar Latin.”
Besides these papers, there was a Round Table on "Problems in the Notations of Reconstructed Forms," led by Professor Carl D. Buck, University of Chicago, which evoked a lively and lengthy discussion. The Presidential Address of Professor Hermann Collitz, Johns Hopkins University, was on "World Languages"; he advocated the use of English, French and German for international purposes, and believed that ultimately natural selection might decide in favor of one or another of the three; he had no objection to Latin also, which should be given a fair chance in the field, but he did not believe in the utility or practicability of "artificial" languages.
Nine more papers, on equally varied themes, were presented by title. It would be impossible to review the papers here, but we may speak of the one paper on a specifically Spanish topic, that of Professor Hills, who convincingly interpreted the-≈ of Spanish patronymics as from Latin genitive forms ending in -itii or -icii, and not as from the Gothic genetive -s; he quoted manuscript authority for the Latin and for the intermediate
stages. Unfortunately, Professor Hills was detained at home by illness, and his paper was read by a colleague.
The officers of the Linguistic Society for 1926 were elected as follows: President, Professor Maurice Bloomfield, Johns Hopkins University; VicePresident, Professor O. F. Emerson, Western Reserve University; Secretary and Treasurer, Professor Roland G. Kent, University of Pennsylvania; Executive Committee: the preceding, and Professor Edgar H. Sturtevant, Yale University; Professor Edward Sapir, University of Chicago; Professor Leonard Bloomfield, Ohio State University. Committee on Publications: Chairman and Editor, Professor G. M. Bolling, Ohio State University; to serve through 1926, Professor Samuel Moore, University of Michigan; to serve through 1927, Professor D. B. Shuwmay, University of Pennsylvania; to serve through 1928, Professor A. M. Espinosa, Stanford University.
The next meeting of the Society will be held in Christmas week 1926, at Harvard University, where the Modern Language Association and the American Philological Association, as well as other organizations, will be meeting. In this way no division of forces will be produced, but each meeting will reinforce the other, and the members of the Linguistic Society look forward to another equally successful meeting at that time.
MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Spanish Language Group (Spanish 1)
The group met at 2 P.M. on Thursday, December 31, 1925, in Classics Building 18, University of Chicago. Professor Hayward Keniston of the University of Chicago was chairman. The program dealt primarily with the language of the sixteenth century. The following papers were presented :
1. The "Modernization" of the Cifar of 1512. Professor C. P. Wagner, University of Michigan.
2. The Use of Adjectives by the Spanish Mystics. Professor Wilfred A. Beardsley, Goucher College.
3. The Language of Juan de Luna's Continuation of Lazarillo de Tormes. Professor E. R. Sims, University of Texas.
Professor Wagner discussed the relations of the manuscripts of the Cifar to each other and to the first printed edition, emphasizing the value of a study of variants and of errors and omissions not only to determine the relations of the various manuscripts and editions, but as showing linguistic changesin this case from the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, represented respectively by ms. “M,” ms. “P,” in the princeps, “S."
Professor Beardsley, in discussing the question of preposition and postposition of adjectives as part of his paper on the use of adjectives by the Spanish mystics, showed that about twice as many adjectives vary in position as are fixed, and that in general preposition indicates subjectivity, sentiment, indefiniteness, while postposition indicates definiteness, practicality, and, especially, emphasis. His paper closed with suggestions for a number of studies that might profitably be undertaken in related fields.