nt nous articulons _shampooing_? Nous n'avons, je
crois, qu'une forme orale pour _boy_, petit domestique, parce qu'il est
du a l'oreille; mais nous sommes partages quant a _boy-scout_, qui est
arrive par tracts et par journaux. L'anglais donne un mot _high-life_,
le francais en fait cinq: _haylayf, ailaif, ichlif, ijlif, iglif_.'
p. 247. It would seem from _high-life_ that English words in French
sometimes look as strange as French words do when represented in
make-shift English phonetics. On p. 228 of the same _Mercure_ there is
notice of 'un petit manuel de conversation' in which 'Toutes les nuances
de la "phonetic pronunciation" sont notees, a l'usage des Americains
desireux de se faire comprendre en francais. Cette notation (says the
reviewer) m'a tellement amuse que je ne puis resister au plaisir
d'en citer quelques exemples: Av-nue' day Shawn Zay-lee-zay',
Plass de la Kown-kord' to Plass der lay-twal. Fown-ten day
Zeen-noh-sawn,--Oh-pay-ra Kum-meek,--Foh-lee Bair-zhair,--Bool-var
day Ka-pu-seen,--Beeb-lee-oh-tech Sant Zhun-vee-ayv',--Lay
Zan-va-leed,--May-zown' der Veck-tor' U-goh',--Hub-bay-leesk',--Rue
San Tawn-twan, &c., &c....' There would seem to be errors in this
'citation'. Vecktor should be Veektor? and H looks like a misprint
for L in Hub-bay-leesk. -tech was probably -teck. Bonnaffe's book
is noticed in _The Modern Language Review_ of last January.

ON THE DIALECTAL WORDS IN EDMUND BLUNDEN'S POEMS[3]

[Footnote 3: _The Waggoner and other Poems_, by Edmund Blunden, pp. 70.
Sidgwick and Jackson. London, 1920.]

In the original prospectus of the S.P.E., reprinted in Tract I, and
again in III, p. 9, one of the objects of the Society is stated to be
the 'enrichment and what is called regeneration of the language from the
picturesque vocabularies of local vernaculars'. Since a young poet, Mr.
Edmund Blunden, has lately published a volume in which this particular
element of dialectal and obsolescent words is very prominent, it will be
suitable to our general purpose to consider it as a practical experiment
and examine the results. The poetic diction and high standard of his
best work give sufficient importance to this procedure; and though he
may seem to be somewhat extravagant in his predilection for unusual
terms, yet his poetry cannot be imagined without them, and the strength
and beauty of the effects must be estimated in his successes and not in
his failures.

In the following remarks no apprec