Society for Pure English, Tract 02 - On English Homophones by Robert Seymour Bridges;Society for Pure English
page 46 of 94 (48%)
page 46 of 94 (48%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
_neigh_bour; but that can serve only in one limited use of the word,
and is no solution. [Sidenote: Punnage.] In talking with friends the common plea that I have heard for homophones is their usefulness to the punster. 'Why! would you have no puns?' I will not answer that question; but there is no fear of our being insufficiently catered for; whatever accidental benefit be derivable from homophones, we shall always command it fully and in excess; look again at the portentous list of them! And since the essential jocularity of a pun (at least when it makes me laugh) lies in a humorous incongruity, its farcical gaiety may be heightened by a queer pronunciation. I cannot pretend to judge a sophisticated taste; but, to give an example, if, as I should urge, the _o_ of the word _petrol_ should be preserved, as it is now universally spoken, not having yet degraded into _petr'l_, a future squire will not be disqualified from airing his wit to his visitors by saying, as he points to his old stables, 'that is where I store my petrel', and when the joke had been illustrated in _Punch_, its folly would sufficiently distract the patients in a dentist's waiting-room for years to come, in spite of gentlemen and chauffeurs continuing to say _petrol_, as they do now; nor would the two _petr'ls_ be more dissimilar than the two _mys_. [Sidenote: Play on words.] Puns must of course be distinguished from such a play on words as John of Gaunt makes with his own name in Shakespeare's _King Richard II_. |
|