The Future Poetry

Current use of English Language

Current use of English Language - I

I am in general agreement with your answer to M's strictures on certain points in your style and your use of the English language. His objections have usually some ground, but are not unquestionably valid; they would be so only if the English language were a fixed and unprogressive and invariable medium demanding a scrupulous correctness and purity and chaste exactness like the French; but this language is constantly changing and escaping from boundaries and previously fixed rules and its character and style, you might almost say, is whatever the writer likes to make it. Stephen Phillips once said of it in a libertine image that the English language is like a woman who will not love you unless

Page 461

you take liberties with her. As for the changeableness, it is obvious in recent violences of alteration, now fixed and recognised, such as the pronunciation of words like "nation" and "ration" which now sound as "gnashun" and "rashun"; one's soul and one's ear revolt, at least mine do, against degrading the noble word "nation" into the clipped indignity of the plebian and ignoble "gnashun", but there is no help for it. As for "aspire for", it may be less correct than "aspire to" or "aspire after", but it is psychologically called for and it seems to me to be much more appropriate than "aspire at" which I would never think of using. The use of prepositions is one of the most debatable things, or at least one of the most frequently debated in the language. The Mother told me of her listening in Japan to interminable quarrels between Cousins and the American Hirsch on debatable points in the language but especially on this battlefield and never once could they agree. It is true that one was an Irish poet from Belfast and the other an American scholar and scientist, so perhaps neither could be taken as an unquestionable authority on the English tongue; but among Englishmen themselves I have known of such constant disputes. Cousins had remarkably independent ideas in these matters; he always insisted that "infinite" must be pronounced "infighnight" on the ground that "finite" was so pronounced and the negative could not presume to differ so unconscionably from the positive. That was after all as good a reason as that alleged for changing the pronunciation of "nation" and "ration" on the ground that as the "a" in "national" and "rational" is short, it is illogical to use a different quantity in the substantive. "To contact" is a phrase that has established itself and it is futile to try to keep America at arm's length any longer; "global" also has established itself and it is too useful and indeed indispensable to reject; there is no other word that can express exactly the same shade of meaning. I heard it first from Arjava who described the language of Arya as expressing a global thinking and I at once caught it up as the right and only word for certain things, for instance, the thinking in masses which is a frequent characteristic of the Overmind. As for the use of current French and Latin phrases, it may be condemned as objectionable on the same ground as the

Page 462

use of clichés and stock phrases in literary style, but they often hit the target more forcibly than any English equivalent and have a more lively effect on the mind of the reader. That may not justify a too frequent use of them, but in moderation it is at least a good excuse for it. I think the expression "bears around it a halo" has been or can be used and it is at least not worn out like the ordinary "wears a halo". One would more usually apply the expression "devoid of method" to an action or procedure than to a person, but the latter turn seems to me admissible. I do not think I need say anything in particular about other objections, they are questions of style and on that there can be different opinions; but you are right in altering the obviously mixed metaphor "in full cry", though I do not think any of your four substitutes have anything of its liveliness and force. Colloquial expressions have, if rightly used, the advantage of giving point, flavour, alertness and I think in your use of them they do that; they can also lower and damage the style, but that danger is mostly when there is a set character of uniform dignity or elevation. The chief character of your style is rather a constant life and vividness and supple and ample abounding energy of thought and language which can soar or run or sweep along at will but does not simply walk or creep or saunter and in such a style forcible colloquialisms can do good service.

2.4.1947

Current use of English Language - II

¹I have gone carefully through the proof of the first chapters of The Deliverance, but find most of these unexplained red marks totally unintelligible; sometimes I can make a guess, but most often not even that. What, for instance, is the objection to the use of "its" and "it" for a river?

There seems to be an objection to any metaphors or figures such as "the scales of public opinion" or a river rejecting someone

Page 463

from its borders. This seems to me astonishing; at any rate the figures are there in the original and one cannot suppress them in a translation or alter arbitrarily the author's substance.

Objections are made also against quite good and appropriate English words such as "beggared" and "quadrupled" or against perfectly correct phrases like "All that was now a history of the past" or "reaching" a figure or "dropping" some money or "he sat at home in his room" in the sense of remaining inactive. One can say, for instance, "He sat in his palace listening to the footsteps of approaching Doom". So too there appears to be some objection to the phrase "neither X nor another", a common English turn; to "started (in the sense of beginning an action or movement) a relentless insistence and importunity". (One can say for instance, "He started an obstinate resistance which never flagged nor ceased".) Vivid epithets, e.g., "rapid visits" or familiar and lively phrases such as "she was back again", are found to be improper and objectionable. "Cares of her household" gets a red mark, though one speaks of "household cares", "cares of state", cares of all kinds. A fever (one must not refer to it as "it") is allowed to throw a person down, but not to let him rise from his bed. Incomprehensible?

All these startling red ink surprises are packed together in the short space of the first chapter. But in the second we meet with still bigger surprises. One is not allowed to "make time" for anything, a most common phrase, or to "leave" a responsibility to someone. A meal must not be "vegetarian" though a diet can be, and though one speaks in English of "a frugal vegetarian dinner". One is not allowed to have a school task to do or to "prepare" a task; but unhappily that is done in England at least and in English.

"Today" is objected to because it is applied to past time; but it is put here as part of the tone of vivid remembered actuality, the past described as if still present before the mind, which is constant in the original. Similarly, a little later on, "the early dusk had fallen a couple of hours ago"; in strict narrative time it should be "before" and not "ago", but though the author writes in the past tense, he is always suggesting a past which is passing immediately before our eyes. I do not see how else the

Page 464

translator is to keep this suggestion. One could use more correctly the historic present: "It is winter and the dusk has fallen a couple of hours ago"; but that would be to falsify the original.

All right of passage is refused to a humorous use of the phrase "give voice", nor can one "retort" instead of merely replying. There is perhaps a syntactical objection to the use of "desperate" at the beginning of the sentence, but the objection is itself incorrect. One says "Pale and haggard, he rose from his bed". One is not allowed to speak humorously of a "portion" instead of a "part" of a big bed so as to emphasise its bigness and the dividing of it into occupied regions by the "gang". A heart is not allowed to "pound away", still less to pound "dismally". The objector seems to damn everything vividly descriptive, everything new in turn, phrase or image, everything in fact not said before by everyone else. A man lying down is not allowed to "start up", though the dictionary meaning of the word is there, "to rise up quickly or suddenly", e.g. "he started up from his bed" or "from his chair". What again is meant by the objection to such recognised locutions as "to take away the (bad) taste" or "much she cares", and why should there not be an "implacable pressure" or why is one forbidden to "get out money" from a box? These red marks are terribly mysterious.

The criticism of the sentence "How could you etc." and the use of "today" is intelligible and to a certain extent tenable. I have tried to explain in the proof itself why the ordinary tense-sequence can be disregarded here. In the latter case it is not so much a question of grammar as of the use of the word "today" for a past time. If it can be so used in order to express more vividly the actual thought in the mind of a person at the time the unusual tense-sequence follows as a matter of course. I have, however, yielded the point for the sake of Sarat Chatterji's reputation which, we are told, is imperilled by our audacities of language.

Chapter III. The objector begins with a queer missing of the obvious sense in the use of "my" and "us". He goes on to challenge the possibility of "entering into" explanations, discussions etc. though it is commonly done, e.g. "He entered into a long discussion" or "You needn't enter into tedious explanations;

Page 465

a few words will be enough."

Chapter IV continues the inexplicable chain and "implacable" series of red objections. I have written "a discussion was in process", which is a quite permissible phrase, but alter it to "progress" just to soften the redness of the red mark. But why cannot Atul "hold forth" as an orator does and what is the matter with the "cut" of a coat, a phrase sacred to every tailor? People in England do, after all, "blurt out" things every day and they "laugh in the face" of others, though of course it may be considered rude; but "to laugh in the face" is not considered bad grammar or bad English. To give "the order" is wrong in the opinion of the objector; but since the purchase of particular things like coats or suits has just been talked about, it is quite correct to say "the order" instead of "an order".

One can't "speak out", apparently, (or perhaps "speak up" either); one can only just speak: nor can one "see to the making of coats for a family". Also it is wrong to ask "what is wrong". It is wrong, it seems, to say "All in the room"; so an Englishman is mistaken when he says "Tell all at home that I am not coming"! So too you can't speak "once more" or "seek for"² anything! The use of the plural of "devotion", common in English³, is red marked as an error!

Chapter V. One can't "labour" to get a result, or "cover up" anything in the sense of "hiding" or even try to do it; one can't put somebody up⁴ to do something, though in English it is constantly done. There is an objection to such perfectly natural figures as "could not summon up any reply" or "the sharp edge of your tongue" or "smouldering secretly within herself". The objector seems indeed to cherish a deadly grudge against figures and images; he is opposed also to colloquial expressions (e.g. "get" out money, "give it here") even in dialogue. He objects to

Page 466

my putting straight into English the Bengali figure of "falling from the sky". There is an almost identical phrase in French with exactly the same sense, "to fall from on high" or "to fall from the clouds"⁵: so I do not see why it should not be done, since it ought to be at once intelligible to an English reader. I note also that words cannot "jump" to the tongue, but why not? they manage to do it every day. Poor Shaila cannot "need" a cup.⁶ Then what is wrong with the sentence "Do you think everybody is your sister" i.e. the speaker herself? It is simply a vivid way of saying "Do you think everybody will be as patient with you as myself", or "Do you think you can speak to everybody as you do to me".

I have written at length because the publisher and perhaps others seem to have been upset by the vicious red jabs of this high authority. In most cases they seem to me to have no meaning whatever. If they have, we should be informed to some extent at least of their why and wherefore.

There are...a few doubtful points in half a dozen sentences, points on which Englishmen themselves differ or might differ. I am ready to go through the whole book if the proofs are sent here. But I cannot revise or alter phrases, locutions or figures which, so far as I know English, are either current or natural or permissible,—unless I am told why these are thought to be incorrect or improper.

I cannot altogether understand Professor M's criticism. What does he mean by irregular language? If he refers to the style and means that it is bad, unchaste, too full of familiar or colloquial terms, not sufficiently dignified, bookish, conventional in phrase, not according to precedent, he is entitled to his view, of course. If he and the objector represent the Indian English-reading public, then D must consider the matter. For in that case, it is clear the book will not be understood by that public, may be banged and bashed by the reviewers, or may for kindred reasons be a failure. The suggestion that Sarat Chandra's high reputation

Page 467

will be tarnished and lowered by D's deplorable style and my bad English and horrible grammar, not from any fault of his own, is very alarming. In that case D ought to have the book corrected by some University professor who knows what to write and what not to write and its style chastened, made correct, common and unnoticeable. I don't think A will do. He is too brilliant and might make the hair of the correct and timid reader rise on his head in horror; besides A does not know Bengali.

The question also arises whether an English reader (an English Englishman, not made in India) would equally fail to appreciate the book; he might find it too Bengali in character and substance and—who knows?—agree that the style of the translation is unorthodox and "irregular". But here we are helpless—we cannot make the experiment, for the war is on and England is far away and paper scarce there as here.

5.8.1944

Page 468