psy
is a mere jargon of the cant and slang of all nations, that of England
predominating; but a very slight examination of the Vocabulary will show
that during more than three hundred years in England the Rommany have not
admitted a single English word to what they correctly call their
language. I mean, of course, so far as my own knowledge of Rommany
extends. To this at least I can testify, that the Gipsy to whom I was
principally indebted for words, though he often used "slang," invariably
discriminated correctly between it and Rommany; and I have often admired
the extraordinary pride in their language which has induced the Gipsies
for so many generations to teach their children this difference. {0a}
Almost every word which my assistant declared to be Gipsy I have found
either in Hindustani or in the works of Pott, Liebich, or Paspati. On
this subject I would remark by the way, that many words which appear to
have been taken by the Gipsies from modern languages are in reality
Indian.

And as I have honestly done what I could to give the English reader fresh
material on the Gipsies, and not a rewarming of that which was gathered
by others, I sincerely trust that I may not be held to sharp account (as
the authors of such books very often are) for not having given more or
done more or done it better than was really in my power. Gipsies in
England are passing away as rapidly as Indians in North America. They
keep among themselves the most singular fragments of their Oriental
origin; they abound in quaint characteristics, and yet almost nothing is
done to preserve what another generation will deeply regret the loss of.
There are complete dictionaries of the Dacotah and many other American
Indian languages, and every detail of the rude life of those savages has
been carefully recorded; while the autobiographic romances of Mr Borrow
and Mr Simson's History contain nearly all the information of any value
extant relative to the English Gipsies. Yet of these two writers, Mr
Borrow is the only one who had, so to speak, an inside view of his
subject, or was a philologist.

In conclusion I would remark, that if I have not, like many writers on
the poor Gipsies, abused them for certain proverbial faults, it has been
because they never troubled me with anything very serious of the kind, or
brought it to my notice; and I certainly never took the pains to hunt it
up to the discredit of people who always behaved decently to me.