Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER XXII

HYPERBOLE OR EXAGGERATION

EXAGGERATION is often regarded as an abuse of language, and so, indeed, it may become if it is recklessly indulged in. But it is a natural and ineradicable tendency of human speech, and has played its part in the development of our vocabulary. The psychology of exaggeration is simple enough. Strong feeling demands strong words. If, as often happens, we feel more strongly than the occasion warrants, we use terms which, though not too strong for our feeling, are disproportionate to the facts of the case. If others do the like, and employ the same words, the vocabulary of the language is affected. Our strong word becomes the sign of a less emphatic idea. It loses vigor and relaxes its hold on its original meaning.

6

Examples will crowd upon the reader's mind. A single one may therefore suffice in this place. Astonish is literally to thunderstrike' (L. ex- and tonare, to thunder'), and was once common in the physical sense of 'stun,' as when Fluellen astonished' Pistol by hitting him on the head with a cudgel. It was also used metaphorically for the extreme effect of terror or wonder in paralyzing the faculties for the moment, a man who was astonished' was in a kind of trance. But the word has gradually lost its force, till nowadays it is hardly more than an emphatic synonym for 'surprise' or 'excite wonder.' Amaze has behaved in a similar way. In its earliest uses it conveyed the idea of utter physical stupefaction, or loss of one's wits. It is still somewhat more emphatic than astonish,

[ocr errors]

but is far from maintaining its pristine vigor. Surprise, which meant literally to seize upon,' 'to capture' (compare the military sense), has become purely descriptive, and is as dispassionate as a quadratic equation. When we wish to express the idea in its full force, we resort to emphatic adverbs (‘utterly amazed,' 'profoundly surprised,' unutterably astonished'), or we employ new terms of similar meaning, like thunderstruck, or stupefied, or petrified with wonder,' or the colloquial dumbfounded, flabbergasted, paralyzed. All of these show a tendency to lose force as time goes on.

6

Words and phrases of affirmation and negation have been particularly affected by the tendency to hyperbole, and sometimes in very curious ways. Yea is the regular old particle for a simple unemphatic affirmative. It is related to the pronominal root seen in our yon (properly 'that') and the German jen-er, and must originally have meant in that way,' i.e. in the same way in which the previous speaker has said the thing happened. Compare the biblical thou sayest it', as a polite expression of assent. In Anglo-Saxon, however, yea (A.S. gea) had become a mere affirmative particle. Yes is also found in Anglo-Saxon in the form gese or gise, which seems to be a compound of yea (gea) and so (swā). It was a stronger affirmative than yea, being equivalent to our 'just so!' or 'exactly so!' or 'yes, indeed.' In time, however, it lost its emphasis and is now the regular particle of affirmation. We may compare the modern quite so,' originally emphatic (since quite meant entirely '), but now a mere substitute for 'yes.' 1 Yea has gone out of use, except in

1 This use of quite so! has grown up in England since the settlement of America and has never been adopted in this country, though it is sometimes heard in conscious or unconscious imitation.

[ocr errors]

dialectic, poetical, or solemn language. Its unfamiliarity and archaic quality make it seem more emphatic than yes, though, as we have seen, the latter was formerly the stronger term. All sorts of hyperbolical substitutes for yes have grown up: such as, by all means, certainly, of course, to be sure, surely (and in recent slang, sure). Here courtesy has been active. It is good manners to make one's assent as cordial as possible. In time, however, as we have seen, all such expressions grow weaker till at last they are hardly distinguishable from a simple 'yes.'

No has a somewhat similar history. It is an old word for never, being the adverb a, 'ever,' with the negative ne prefixed. Nay is the related Old Norse nei, of similar meaning. Originally, then, no and nay were as strong a negative as 'never!' is to-day. Substitutes have grown up in plenty, like not at all, by no means, and so on. Courtesy, however, which demands an emphatic yes, suggests, on the other hand, the propriety of softening a negative answer. Hence we have hardly, scarcely, I think not, and a score of similar phrases, all of which have come to have the full negative force.

[ocr errors]

The tendency to emphasize the negative may also be seen in a number of figurative expressions with not. Not itself is merely a clipped pronunciation of naught, 'nothing,' and meant originally not a bit,' not a whit.' Its origin was soon forgotten, and such phrases as not a mite and the like came into use. Our older language has a multitude of these, some of them very grotesque: as, not worth an oyster, a hen, a leek. Not a jot is scriptural: 'One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law' (Matthew iv. 18). Jot is iota, the Greek letter ɩ (our i): cf. 'not an iota.' Tittle means a 'little bit'; its etymology is doubtful. If such a phrase becomes idiomatic, the not

sometimes disappears, leaving behind it, however, its full force attached to a word which has in itself absolutely no negative sense. We may compare the contemptuous much in Elizabethan English in the sense of not much!' as when Falstaff speaks of men as their fathers' shadows, adding but much of the father's substance ! '1 This process explains the French point, 'point'; rien, 'thing'; and pas, step' (L. passus), in their negative use, and illustrates in a striking way the truth of the statement on which we have already insisted, that language is conventional, and that words mean what the speaker intends and the hearer understands.

6

Emphasis is also responsible for the double negative, which, however much it may make an affirmative in logic, has rarely any such effect in language.2

The examples which we have studied suffice to illustrate the effect of hyperbole or exaggeration on legitimate speech. The same tendencies come out with even greater clearness in the colloquial dialect and in slang, since here, as we have already remarked,3 the changes are so rapid that we can actually see them taking place. For this reason, the very absurdities of slang and (since the word must have a feminine) polite inelegance, may throw a strong light on the processes of legitimate speech, as monstrosities guide the naturalist in investigating the normal development of species. We may select the special category of adjectives and adverbs of degree, which will be found particularly instructive.

Such words are somewhat inexact in themselves, since the feelings that prompt them are seldom well defined.

1 This use of Much, however, is more likely to be irony. Cf. Much he knows!' Much you care!'

[blocks in formation]

They are, therefore, peculiarly exposed to the inroads of slang and fantastic colloquialism. The general tendency to exaggeration is strikingly exemplified. Take, for instance, the descriptive terms or ejaculations of pleasure evoked by a view or spectacle. Beautiful and fine are natural and simple expressions; but they soon become too weak to satisfy the enthusiastic tourist or spectator, and stronger words are substituted, such as lovely, delightful, splendid, glorious, superb, grand, wonderful, gorgeous, heavenly, sublime, magnificent, perfect, divine, tremendous, entrancing, stupendous, enchanting. Of the same sort are the genuine slang words bang-up, rattling good, tip-top, first-rate, immense (cf. Ger. kolossal), stunning, corking. It is to be feared that some of these occasionally force their way into the less vulgar list. Charming has been omitted from the enumeration because, though originally referring to superstitious ideas from which the minds of men have only lately been liberated, yet the decay of the word has been so rapid that it is now, in its ordinary use, a pretty tame epithet.1

In accordance with the general habit of language, all the epithets just mentioned are applied not merely to beautiful scenes but to other objects of sense, and also to things that do not appeal to the senses at all. In fact, they are employed with so little discrimination that they

[ocr errors]

'A

1 Enchanting and bewitching have retained more of their force. Take was once synonymous with 'bewitch,' both in the literal and the figurative sense, as in Shakspere: 'No fairy takes nor witch hath power to charm, So hallow'd and so gracious is the time' (Hamlet); ‘Daffodils that take the winds of March with beauty' (Winter's Tale). taking person,' however, ora taking manner' carries but little of this old sense. Fetching has been recently substituted for taking in polite slang, 'a very fetching costume.' Thus language, legitimate and illegitimate, insists on novelty. 'Men loven of propre kinde newefangelnesse,' as Chaucer says.

« AnteriorContinuar »