Читать книгу The Grammar of English Grammars - Goold Brown - Страница 148

OBS. 1.—The foregoing rules aim at no wild and impracticable reformation of our orthography; but, if carefully applied, they will do much to obviate its chief difficulties. Being made variable by the ignorance of some writers and the caprice of others, our spelling is now, and always has been, exceedingly irregular and unsettled. Uniformity and consistency can be attained in no other way, than by the steady application of rules and principles; and these must be made as few and as general as the case will admit, that the memory of the learner may not be overmatched by their number or complexity. Rules founded on the analogy of similar words, and sanctioned by the usage of careful writers, must be taken as our guides; because common practice is often found to be capricious, contradictory, and uncertain. That errors and inconsistencies abound, even in the books which are proposed to the world as standards of English orthography, is a position which scarcely needs proof. It is true, to a greater or less extent, of all the spelling-books and dictionaries that I have seen, and probably of all that have ever been published. And as all authors are liable to mistakes, which others may copy, general rules should have more weight than particular examples to the contrary. "The right spelling of a word may be said to be that which agrees the best with its pronunciation, its etymology, and with the analogy of the particular class of words to which it belongs."—Philological Museum, Vol. i, p. 647.

OBS. 2.—I do not deny that great respect is due to the authority of our lexicographers, or that great improvement was made in the orthography of our language when Dr. Johnson put his hand to the work. But sometimes one man's authority may offset an other's; and he that is inconsistent with himself, destroys his own: for, surely, his example cannot be paramount to his principles. Much has been idly said, both for and against the adoption of Johnson's Dictionary, or Webster's, as the criterion of what is right or wrong in spelling; but it would seem that no one man's learning is sufficiently extensive, or his memory sufficiently accurate, to be solely relied on to furnish a standard by which we may in all cases be governed. Johnson was generally right; but, like other men, he was sometimes wrong. He erred sometimes in his principles, or in their application; as when he adopted the k in such words as rhetorick, and demoniack; or when he inserted the u in such words as governour, warriour, superiour. Neither of these modes of spelling was ever generally adopted, in any thing like the number of words to which he applied them; or ever will be; though some indiscreet compilers are still zealously endeavouring to impose them upon the public, as the true way of spelling. He also erred sometimes by accident, or oversight; as when he spelled thus: "recall and miscal, inthrall and bethral, windfall and downfal, laystall and thumbstal, waterfall and overfal, molehill and dunghil, windmill and twibil, uphill and downhil." This occasional excision of the letter l is reprehensible, because it is contrary to general analogy, and because both letters are necessary to preserve the sound, and show the derivation of the compound. Walker censures it as a "ridiculous irregularity," and lays the blame of it on the "printers," and yet does not venture to correct it! See Johnson's Dictionary, first American edition, quarto; Walker's Pronouncing Dictionary, under the word Dunghil; and his Rhyming Dictionary, Introd., p. xv.

OBS. 3.—"Dr. Johnson's Dictionary" has been represented by some as having "nearly fixed the external form of our language." But Murray, who quotes this from Dr. Nares, admits, at the same time, that, "The orthography of a great number of English words, is far from being uniform, even amongst writers of distinction."—Gram., p. 25. And, after commending this work of Johnson's, as A STANDARD, from which, "it is earnestly to be hoped, that no author will henceforth, on light grounds, be tempted to innovate," he adds, "This Dictionary, however, contains some orthographical inconsistencies which ought to be rectified: such as, immovable, moveable; chastely, chastness; fertileness, fertily; sliness, slyly; fearlessly, fearlesness; needlessness, needlesly."—Ib. In respect to the final ck and our, he also intentionally departs from THE STANDARD which he thus commends; preferring, in that, the authority of Walker's Rhyming Dictionary, from which he borrowed his rules for spelling. For, against the use of k at the end of words from the learned languages, and against the u in many words in which Johnson used it, we have the authority, not only of general usage now, but of many grammarians who were contemporary with Johnson, and of more than a dozen lexicographers, ancient or modern, among whom is Walker himself. In this, therefore, Murray's practice is right, and his commended standard dictionary, wrong.

OBS. 4.—Of words ending in or or our, we have about three hundred and twenty; of which not more than forty can now with any propriety be written with the latter termination. Aiming to write according to the best usage of the present day, I insert the u in so many of these words as now seem most familiar to the eye when so written; but I have no partiality for any letters that can well be spared; and if this book should ever, by any good fortune, happen to be reprinted, after honour, labour, favour, behaviour, and endeavour, shall have become as unfashionable as authour, errour, terrour, and emperour, are now, let the proof-reader strike out the useless letter not only from these words, but from all others which shall bear an equally antiquated appearance.

OBS. 5.—I have suggested the above-mentioned imperfections in Dr. Johnson's orthography, merely to justify the liberty which I take of spelling otherwise; and not with any view to give a preference to that of Dr. Webster, who is now contending for the honour of having furnished a more correct standard. For the latter author, though right in some things in which the former was wrong, is, on the whole, still more erroneous and inconsistent. In his various attempts at reformation in our orthography, he has spelled many hundreds of words in such a variety of ways, that he knows not at last which of them is right, and which are wrong. But in respect to definitions, he has done good service to our literature; nor have his critics been sufficiently just respecting what they call his "innovations." See Cobb's Critical Review of the Orthography of Webster. To omit the k from such words as publick, or the u from such as superiour, is certainly no innovation; it is but ignorance that censures the general practice, under that name. The advocates for Johnson and opponents of Webster, who are now so zealously stickling for the k and the u in these cases, ought to know that they are contending for what was obsolete, or obsolescent, when Dr. Johnson was a boy.

OBS. 6.—I have before observed that some of the grammarians who were contemporary with Johnson, did not adopt his practice respecting the k or the u, in publick, critick, errour, superiour, &c. And indeed I am not sure there were any who did. Dr. Johnson was born in 1709, and he died in 1784. But Brightland's Grammar, which was written during the reign of Queen Anne, who died in 1714, in treating of the letter C, says, "If in any Word the harder Sound precedes (e), (i), or (y), (k) is either added or put in its Place; as, Skill, Skin, Publick: And tho' the additional (k) in the foregoing Word be an old Way of Spelling, yet it is now very justly left off, as being a superfluous Letter; for (c) at the End is always hard."—Seventh Edition, Lond., 1746, p. 37.

OBS. 7.—The three grammars of Ash, Priestley, and Lowth, all appeared, in their first editions, about one time; all, if I mistake not, in the year 1763; and none of these learned doctors, it would seem, used the mode of spelling now in question. In Ash, of 1799, we have such orthography as this: "Italics, public, domestic, our traffic, music, quick; error, superior, warrior, authors, honour, humour, favour, behaviour." In Priestley, of 1772: "Iambics, dactyls, dactylic, anapæstic, monosyllabic, electric, public, critic; author, emperor's, superior; favour, labours, neighbours, laboured, vigour, endeavour; meagre, hillock, bailiwick, bishoprick, control, travelling." In Lowth, of 1799: "Comic, critic, characteristic, domestic; author, favor, favored, endeavored, alledging, foretells." Now all these are words in the spelling of which Johnson and Webster contradict each other; and if they are not all right, surely they would not, on the whole, be made more nearly right, by being conformed to either of these authorities exclusively. For THE BEST USAGE is the ultimate rule of grammar.

OBS. 8.—The old British Grammar, written before the American Revolution, and even before "the learned Mr. Samuel Johnson" was doctorated, though it thus respectfully quotes that great scholar, does not follow him in the spelling of which I am treating. On the contrary, it abounds with examples of words ending in ic and or, and not in ick and our, as he wrote them; and I am confident, that, from that time to this, the former orthography has continued to be more common than his. Walker, the orthoëpist, who died in 1807, yielded the point respecting the k, and ended about four hundred and fifty words with c in his Rhyming Dictionary; but he thought it more of an innovation than it really was. In his Pronouncing Dictionary, he says, "It has been a custom, within these twenty years, to omit the k at the end of words, when preceded by c. This has introduced a novelty into the language, which is that of ending a word with an unusual letter," &c. "This omission of k is, however, too general to be counteracted, even by the authority of Johnson; but it is to be hoped it will be confined to words from the learned languages."—Walker's Principles of Pronunciation, No. 400. The tenth edition of Burn's Grammar, dated 1810, says, "It has become customary to omit k after c at the end of dissyllables and trisyllables, &c. as music, arithmetic, logic; but the k is retained in monosyllables; as, back, deck, rick, &c."—P. 25. James Buchanan, of whose English Syntax there had been five American editions in 1792, added no k to such words as didactic, critic, classic, of which he made frequent use; and though he wrote honour, labour, and the like, with u, as they are perhaps most generally written now, he inserted no u in error, author, or any of those words in which that letter would now be inconsistent with good taste.

OBS. 9.—Bicknell's Grammar, of 1790, treating of the letter k, says, "And for the same reason we have dropt it at the end of words after c, which is there always hard; as in publick, logick, &c. which are more elegantly written public, logic."—Part ii, p. 13. Again: "It has heretofore joined with c at the end of words; as publick, logick; but, as before observed, being there quite superfluous, it is now left out"—Ib., p. 16. Horne Tooke's orthography was also agreeable to the rule which I have given on this subject. So is the usage of David Booth: "Formerly a k was added, as, rustick, politick, Arithmetick, &c. but this is now in disuse."—Booth's Introd. to Dict., Lond., 1814, p. 80.

OBS. 10.—As the authors of many recent spelling-books—Cobb, Emerson, Burhans, Bolles, Sears, Marshall, Mott, and others—are now contending for this "superfluous letter," in spite of all the authority against it, it seems proper briefly to notice their argument, lest the student be misled by it. It is summed up by one of them in the following words: "In regard to k after c at the end of words, it may be sufficient to say, that its omission has never been attempted, except in a small portion of the cases where it occurs; and that it tends to an erroneous pronunciation of derivatives, as in mimick, mimicking, where, if the k were omitted, it would read mimicing; and as c before i is always sounded like s, it must be pronounced mimising. Now, since it is never omitted in monosyllables, where it most frequently occurs, as in block, clock, &c., and can be in a part only of polysyllables, it is thought better to preserve it in all cases, by which we have one general rule, in place of several irregularities and exceptions that must follow its partial omission."—Bolles's Spelling-Book, p. 2. I need not tell the reader that these two sentences evince great want of care or skill in the art of grammar. But it is proper to inform him, that we have in our language eighty-six monosyllables which end with ck, and from them about fifty compounds or derivatives, which of course keep the same termination. To these may be added a dozen or more which seem to be of doubtful formation, such as huckaback, pickapack, gimcrack, ticktack, picknick, barrack, knapsack, hollyhock, shamrock, hammock, hillock, hammock, bullock, roebuck. But the verbs on which this argument is founded are only six; attack, ransack, traffick, frolick, mimick, and physick; and these, unquestionably, must either be spelled with the k, or must assume it in their derivatives. Now that useful class of words which are generally and properly written with final c, are about four hundred and fifty in number, and are all of them either adjectives or nouns of regular derivation from the learned languages, being words of more than one syllable, which have come to us from Greek or Latin roots. But what has the doubling of c by k, in our native monosyllables and their derivatives, to do with all these words of foreign origin? For the reason of the matter, we might as well double the l, as our ancestors did, in naturall, temporall, spirituall, &c.

OBS. 11.—The learner should observe that some letters incline much to a duplication, while gome others are doubled but seldom, and some, never. Thus, among the vowels, ee and oo occur frequently; aa is used sometimes; ii, never—except in certain Latin words, (wherein the vowels are separately uttered,) such as Horatii, Veii, iidem, genii. Again, the doubling of u is precluded by the fact that we have a distinct letter called Double-u, which was made by joining two Vees, or two Ues, when the form for u was v. So, among the consonants, f, l, and s, incline more to duplication, than any others. These letters are double, not only at the end of those monosyllables which have but one vowel, as staff, mill, pass; but also under some other circumstances. According to general usage, final f is doubled after a single vowel, in almost all cases; as in bailiff, caitiff, plaintiff, midriff, sheriff, tariff, mastiff: yet not in calif, which is perhaps better written caliph. Final l, as may be seen by Rule 8th, admits not now of a duplication like this; but, by the exceptions to Rule 4th, it is frequently doubled when no other consonant would be; as in travelling, grovelling; unless, (contrary to the opinion of Lowth, Walker, and Webster,) we will have fillipping, gossipping, and worshipping, to be needful exceptions also.

OBS. 12.—Final s sometimes occurs single, as in alas, atlas, bias; and especially in Latin words, as virus, impetus; and when it is added to form plurals, as verse, verses: but this letter, too, is generally doubled at the end of primitive words of more than one syllable; as in carcass, compass, cuirass, harass, trespass, embarrass. On the contrary, the other consonants are seldom doubled, except when they come under Rule 3d. The letter p, however, is commonly doubled, in some words, even when it forms a needless exception to Rule 4th; as in the derivatives from fillip, gossip, and perhaps also worship. This letter, too, was very frequently doubled in Greek; whence we have, from the name of Philip of Macedon, the words Philippic and Philippize, which, if spelled according to our rule for such derivatives, would, like galloped and galloper, siruped and sirupy, have but one p. We find them so written in some late dictionaries. But if fillipped, gossipped, and worshipped, with the other derivatives from the same roots, are just and necessary exceptions to Rule 4th, (which I do not admit,) so are these; and for a much stronger reason, as the classical scholar will think. In our language, or in words purely English, the letters h, i, j, k, q, v, w, x, and y, are, properly speaking, never doubled. Yet, in the forming of compounds, it may possibly happen, that two Aitches, two Kays, or even two Double-ues or Wies, shall come together; as in withhold, brickkiln, slowwoorm, bayyarn.

OBS. 13.—There are some words—as those which come from metal, medal, coral, crystal, argil, axil, cavil, tranquil, pupil, papil—in which the classical scholar is apt to violate the analogy of English derivation, by doubling the letter l, because he remembers the ll of their foreign roots, or their foreign correspondents. But let him also remember, that, if a knowledge of etymology may be shown by spelling metallic, metalliferous, metallography, metallurgic, metallurgist, metallurgy, medallic, medallion, crystallize, crystalline, argillous, argillaceous, axillar, axillary, cavillous, cavillation, papillate, papillous, papillary, tranquillity, and pupillary, with double l, ignorance of it must needs be implied in spelling metaline, metalist, metaloid, metaloidal, medalist, coralaceous, coraline, coralite, coralinite, coraloid, coraloidal, crystalite, argilite, argilitic, tranquilize, and pupilage, in like manner. But we cannot well double the l in the former, and not in the latter words. Here is a choice of difficulties. Etymology must govern orthography. But what etymology? our own, or that which is foreign? If we say, both, they disagree; and the mere English scholar cannot know when, or how far, to be guided by the latter. If a Latin diminutive, as papilla from papula or papa, pupillus from pupus, or tranquillus from trans and quietus, happen to double an l, must we forever cling to the reduplication, and that, in spite of our own rules to the contrary? Why is it more objectionable to change pupillaris to pupilary, than pupillus to pupil? or, to change tranquillitas to tranquility, than tranquillus to tranquil? And since papilous, pupilage, and tranquilize are formed from the English words, and not directly from the Latin, why is it not as improper to write them with double l, as to write perilous, vassalage, and civilize, in the same manner?

OBS. 14.—If the practice of the learned would allow us to follow the English rule here, I should incline to the opinion, that all the words which I have mentioned above, ought to be written with single l. Ainsworth exhibits the Latin word for coral in four forms, and the Greek word in three. Two of the Latin and two of the Greek have the l single; the others double it. He also spells "coraliticus" with one l, and defines it "A sort of white marble, called coraline." [120] The Spaniards, from whose medalla, we have medal; whose argil[121] is arcilla, from the Latin argilla; and to whose cavilar, Webster traces cavil; in all their derivatives from these Latin roots, metallum, metal—coralium, corallium, curalium, or corallum, coral—crystallus or crystallum, crystal—pupillus, pupil—and tranquillus, tranquil—follow their own rules, and write mostly with single l: as, pupilero, a teacher; metalico, metalic; corolina (fem.) coraline; cristalino, crystaline; crystalizar, crystalize; traquilizar, tranquilize; and tranquilidad, tranquility. And if we follow not ours, when or how shall the English scholar ever know why we spell as we do? For example, what can he make of the orthography of the following words, which I copy from our best dictionaries: equip', eq'uipage; wor'ship, wor'shipper;—peril, perilous; cavil, cavillous;[122]—libel, libellous; quarrel, quarrelous;—opal, opaline; metal, metalline;[123]—coral, coralliform; crystal, crystalform;—dial, dialist; medal, medallist;—rascal, rascalion; medal, medallion;—moral, moralist, morality; metal, metallist, metallurgy;—civil, civilize, civility; tranquil, tranquillize, tranquillity;—novel, novelism, novelist, novelize; grovel, grovelling, grovelled, groveller?

OBS. 15.—The second clause of Murray's or Walker's 5th Rule for spelling, gives only a single l to each of the derivatives above named.[124] But it also treats in like manner many hundreds of words in which the l must certainly be doubled. And, as neither "the Compiler," nor any of his copiers, have paid any regard to their own principle, neither their doctrine nor their practice can be of much weight either way. Yet it is important to know to what words the rule is, or is not, applicable. In considering this vexatious question about the duplication of l, I was at first inclined to admit that, whenever final l has become single in English by dropping the second l of a foreign root, the word shall resume the ll in all derivatives formed from it by adding a termination beginning with a vowel; as, beryllus, beryl, berylline. This would, of course, double the l in nearly all the derivatives from metal, medal, &c. But what says Custom? She constantly doubles the l in most of them; but wavers in respect to some, and in a few will have it single. Hence the difficulty of drawing a line by which we may abide without censure. Pu'pillage and pu'pillary, with ll, are according to Walker's Rhyming Dictionary; but Johnson spells them pu'pilage and pu'pilary, with single l; and Walker, in his Pronouncing Dictionary, has pupilage with one l, and pupillary with two. Again: both Johnson's and the Pronouncing Dictionary, give us medallist and metallist with ll, and are sustained by Webster and others; but Walker, in his Rhyming Dictionary, writes them medalist and metalist, with single l, like dialist, formalist, cabalist, herbalist, and twenty other such words. Further: Webster doubles the l in all the derivatives of metal, medal, coral, axil, argil, and papil; but writes it single in all those of crystal, cavil, pupil, and tranquil—except tranquillity.

OBS. 16.—Dr. Webster also attempts, or pretends, to put in practice the hasty proposition of Walker, to spell with single l all derivatives from words ending in l not under the accent. "No letter," says Walker, "seems to be more frequently doubled improperly than l. Why we should write libelling, levelling, revelling, and yet offering, suffering, reasoning, I am totally at a loss to determine; and, unless l can give a better plea than any other letter in the alphabet, for being doubled in this situation, I must, in the style of Lucian, in his trial of the letter T, declare for an expulsion."—Rhyming Dict., p. x. This rash conception, being adopted by some men of still less caution, has wrought great mischief in our orthography. With respect to words ending in el, it is a good and sufficient reason for doubling the l, that the e may otherwise be supposed servile and silent. I have therefore made this termination a general exception to the rule against doubling. Besides, a large number of these words, being derived from foreign words in which the l was doubled, have a second reason for the duplication, as strong as that which has often induced these same authors to double that letter, as noticed above. Such are bordel, chapel, duel, fardel, gabel, gospel, gravel, lamel, label, libel, marvel, model, novel, parcel, quarrel, and spinel. Accordingly we find, that, in his work of expulsion, Dr. Webster has not unfrequently contradicted himself, and conformed to usage, by doubling the l where he probably intended to write it single. Thus, in the words bordeller, chapellany, chapelling, gospellary, gospeller, gravelly, lamellate, lamellar, lamellarly, lamelliform, and spinellane, he has written the l double, while he has grossly corrupted many other similar words by forbearing the reduplication; as, traveler, groveling, duelist, marvelous, and the like. In cases of such difficulty, we can never arrive at uniformity and consistency of practice, unless we resort to principles, and such principles as can be made intelligible to the English scholar. If any one is dissatisfied with the rules and exceptions which I have laid down, let him study the subject till he can furnish the schools with better.

OBS. 17.—We have in our language a very numerous class of adjectives ending in able or ible, as affable, arable, tolerable, admissible, credible, infallible, to the number of nine hundred or more. In respect to the proper form and signification of some of these, there occurs no small difficulty. Able is a common English word, the meaning of which is much better understood than its origin. Horne Tooke supposes it to have come from the Gothic noun abal, signifying strength; and consequently avers, that it "has nothing to do with the Latin adjective habilis, fit, or able, from which our etymologists erroneously derive it."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 450. This I suppose the etymologists will dispute with him. But whatever may be its true derivation, no one can well deny that able, as a suffix, belongs most properly, if not exclusively, to verbs; for most of the words formed by it, are plainly a sort of verbal adjectives. And it is evident that this author is right in supposing that English words of this termination, like the Latin verbals in bilis, have, or ought to have, such a signification as may justify the name which he gives them, of "potential passive adjectives;" a signification in which the English and the Latin derivatives exactly correspond. Thus dis'soluble or dissolv'able does not mean able to dissolve, but capable of being dissolved; and divisible or dividable does not mean able to divide, but capable of being divided.

OBS. 18.—As to the application of this suffix to nouns, when we consider the signification of the words thus formed, its propriety may well be doubted. It is true, however, that nouns do sometimes assume something of the nature of verbs, so as to give rise to adjectives that are of a participial character; such, for instance, as sainted, bigoted, conceited, gifted, tufted. Again, of such as hard-hearted, good-natured, cold-blooded, we have an indefinite number. And perhaps, upon the same principle, the formation of such words as actionable, companionable, exceptionable, marketable, merchantable, pasturable, treasonable, and so forth, may be justified, if care be taken to use them in a sense analogous to that of the real verbals. But, surely, the meaning which is commonly attached to the words amicable, changeable, fashionable, favourable, peaceable, reasonable, pleasurable, seasonable, suitable, and some others, would never be guessed from their formation. Thus, suitable means fitting or suiting, and not able to suit, or capable of being suited.

OBS. 19.—Though all words that terminate in able, used as a suffix, are properly reckoned derivatives, rather than compounds, and in the former class the separate meaning of the parts united is much less regarded than in the latter; yet, in the use of words of this formation, it would be well to have some respect to the general analogy of their signification as stated above; and not to make derivatives of the same fashion convey meanings so very different as do some of these. Perhaps it is from some general notion of their impropriety, that several words of this doubtful character have already become obsolete, or are gradually falling into disuse: as, accustomable, chanceable, concordable, conusable, customable, behoovable, leisurable, medicinable, personable, powerable, razorable, shapable, semblable, vengeable, veritable. Still, there are several others, yet currently employed, which might better perhaps, for the same reason, give place to more regular terms: as, amicable, for friendly or kind; charitable, for benevolent or liberal; colourable, for apparent or specious; peaceable, for peaceful or unhostile; pleasurable, for pleasing or delightful; profitable, for gainful or lucrative; sociable, for social or affable; reasonable, for rational or just.

OBS. 20.—In respect to the orthography of words ending in able or ible, it is sometimes difficult to determine which of these endings ought to be preferred; as whether we ought to write tenable or tenible, reversable or reversible, addable or addible. In Latin, the termination is bilis, and the preceding vowel is determined by the conjugation to which the verb belongs. Thus, for verbs of the first conjugation, it is a; as, from arare, to plough, arabilis, arable, tillable. For the second conjugation, it is i; as, from doc=ere, to teach, docibilis, or docilis, docible or docile, teachable. For the third conjugation, it is i; as, from vend=ere, to sell, vendibilis, vendible, salable. And, for the fourth conjugation, it is i; as, from sepelire, to bury, sepelib~ilis, sep'elible,[125] buriable. But from solvo and volvo, of the third conjugation, we have ubilis, uble; as, solubilis, sol'uble, solvible or solvable; volubilis, vol'uble, rollable. Hence the English words, rev'oluble, res'oluble, irres'oluble, dis'soluble, indis'soluble, and insol'uble. Thus the Latin verbals in bilis, are a sufficient guide to the orthography of all such words as are traceable to them; but the mere English scholar cannot avail himself of this aid; and of this sort of words we have a much greater number than were ever known in Latin. A few we have borrowed from the French: as, tenable, capable, preferable, convertible; and these we write as they are written in French. But the difficulty lies chiefly in those which are of English growth. For some of them are formed according to the model of the Latin verbals in ibilis; as forcible, coercible, reducible, discernible; and others are made by simply adding the suffix able; as traceable, pronounceable, manageable, advisable, returnable. The last are purely English; and yet they correspond in form with such as come from Latin verbals in abilis.

OBS. 21.—From these different modes of formation, with the choice of different roots, we have sometimes two or three words, differing in orthography and pronunciation, but conveying the same meaning; as, divis'ible and divi'dable, des'picable and despi'sable, ref'erable and refer'rible, mis'cible and mix'able, dis'soluble, dissol'vible, and dissol'vable. Hence, too, we have some words which seem to the mere English scholar to be spelled in a very contradictory manner, though each, perhaps, obeys the law of its own derivation; as, peaceable and forcible, impierceable and coercible, marriageable and corrigible, damageable and eligible, changeable and tangible, chargeable and frangible, fencible and defensible, pref'erable and referrible, conversable and reversible, defendable and descendible, amendable and extendible, bendable and vendible, dividable and corrodible, returnable and discernible, indispensable and responsible, advisable and fusible, respectable and compatible, delectable and collectible, taxable and flexible.

OBS. 22.—The American editor of the Red Book, to whom all these apparent inconsistencies seemed real blunders, has greatly exaggerated this difficulty in our orthography, and charged Johnson and Walker with having written all these words and many more, in this contradictory manner, "without any apparent reason!" He boldly avers, that, "The perpetual contradictions of the same or like words, in all the books, show that the authors had no distinct ideas of what is right, and what is wrong;" and ignorantly imagines, that, "The use of ible rather than able, in any case, originated in the necessity of keeping the soft sound of c and g, in the derivatives; and if ible was confined to that use, it would be an easy and simple rule."—Red Book, p. 170. Hence, he proposes to write peacible for peaceable, tracible for traceable, changible for changeable, managible for manageable; and so for all the rest that come from words ending in ce or ge. But, whatever advantage there might be in this, his "easy and simple rule" would work a revolution for which the world is not yet prepared. It would make audible audable, fallible fallable, feasible feasable, terrible terrable, horrible horrable, &c. No tyro can spell in a worse manner than this, even if he have no rule at all. And those who do not know enough of Latin grammar to profit by what I have said in the preceding observation, may console themselves with the reflection, that, in spelling these difficult words entirely by guess, they will not miss the way more than some have done who pretended to be critics. The rule given by John Burn, for able and ible, is less objectionable; but it is rendered useless by the great number of its exceptions.

OBS. 23.—As most of the rules for spelling refer to the final letters of our primitive words, it may be proper for the learner to know and remember, that not all the letters of the alphabet can assume that situation, and that some of them terminate words much more frequently than others. Thus, in Walker's Rhyming Dictionary, the letter a ends about 220 words; b, 160; c, 450; d, 1550; e, 7000; f, 140; g, 280; h, 400; i, 29; j, none; k, 550; l, 1900; m, 550; n, 3300; o, 200; p, 450; q, none; r, 2750; s, 3250; t, 3100; u, 14; v, none; w, 200; x, 100; y, 5000; z, 5. We have, then, three consonants, j, q, and v, which never end a word. And why not? With respect to j and v, the reason is plain from their history. These letters were formerly identified with i and u, which are not terminational letters. The vowel i ends no pure English word, except that which is formed of its own capital I; and the few words which end with u are all foreign, except thou and you. And not only so, the letter j is what was formerly called i consonant; and v is what was called u consonant. But it was the initial i and u, or the i and u which preceded an other vowel, and not those which followed one, that were converted into the consonants j and v. Hence, neither of these letters ever ends any English word, or is ever doubled. Nor do they unite with other consonants before or after a vowel: except that v is joined with r in a few words of French origin, as livre, manoeuvre; or with l in some Dutch names, as Watervleit. Q ends no English word, because it is always followed by u. The French termination que, which is commonly retained in pique, antique, critique, opaque, oblique, burlesque, and grotesque, is equivalent to k; hence we write packet, lackey, checker, risk, mask, and mosk, rather than paquet, laquey, chequer, risque, masque, and mosque. And some authors write burlesk and grotesk, preferring k to que.

OBS. 24.—Thus we see that j, q, and v, are, for the most part, initial consonants only. Hence there is a harshness, if not an impropriety, in that syllabication which some have recently adopted, wherein they accommodate to the ear the division of such words as maj-es-ty, proj-ect, traj-ect—eq-ui-ty, liq-ui-date, ex-cheq-uer. But v, in a similar situation, has now become familiar; as in ev-er-y, ev-i-dence: and it may also stand with l or r, in the division of such words as solv-ing and serv-ing. Of words ending in ive, Walker exhibits four hundred and fifty—exactly the same number that he spells with ic. And Horne Tooke, who derives ive from the Latin ivus, (q. d. vis,) and ic from the Greek [Greek: ikos], (q. d. [Greek: ischus]) both implying power, has well observed that there is a general correspondence of meaning between these two classes of adjectives—both being of "a potential active signification; as purgative, vomitive, operative, &c.; cathartic, emetic, energetic, &c."—Diversions of Purley, Vol. ii, p. 445. I have before observed, that Tooke spelled all this latter class of words without the final k; but he left it to Dr. Webster to suggest the reformation of striking the final e from the former.

OBS. 25.—In Dr. Webster's "Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Peeces," published in 1790, we find, among other equally ingenious improvements of our orthography, a general omission of the final e in all words ending in ive, or rather of all words ending in ve, preceded by a short vowel; as, "primitiv, derivativ, extensiv, positiv, deserv, twelv, proov, luv, hav, giv, liv." This mode of spelling, had it been adopted by other learned men, would not only have made v a very frequent final consonant, but would have placed it in an other new and strange predicament, as being subject to reduplication. For he that will write hav, giv, and liv, must also, by a general rule of grammar, write havving, givving, and livving. And not only so, there will follow also, in the solemn style of the Bible, a change of givest, livest, giveth, and liveth, into givvest, livvest, givveth, and livveth. From all this it may appear, that a silent final e is not always quite so useless a thing as some may imagine. With a levity no less remarkable, does the author of the Red Book propose at once two different ways of reforming the orthography of such words as pierceable, manageable, and so forth; in one of which, the letter j would be brought into a new position, and subjected sometimes to reduplication. "It would be a useful improvement to change this c into s, and g into j;" as, piersable, manajable, &c. "Or they might assume i;" as, piercibe, managible, &c.—Red Book, p. 170. Now would not this "useful improvement" give us such a word as allejjable? and would not one such monster be more offensive than all our present exceptions to Rule 9th? Out upon all such tampering with orthography!

OBS. 26.—If any thing could arrest the folly of innovators and dabbling reformers, it would be the history of former attempts to effect improvements similar to theirs. With this sort of history every one would do well to acquaint himself, before he proceeds to disfigure words by placing their written elements in any new predicament. If the orthography of the English language is ever reduced to greater regularity than it now exhibits, the reformation must be wrought by those who have no disposition either to exaggerate its present defects, or to undertake too much. Regard must be had to the origin, as well as to the sounds, of words. To many people, all silent letters seem superfluous; and all indirect modes of spelling, absurd. Hence, as the learner may perceive, a very large proportion of the variations and disputed points in spelling, are such as refer to the silent letters, which are retained by some writers and omitted by others. It is desirable that such as are useless and irregular should be always omitted; and such as are useful and regular always retained. The rules which I have laid down as principles of discrimination, are such as almost every reader will know to be generally true, and agreeable to present usage, though several of them have never before been printed in any grammar. Their application will strike out some letters which are often written, and retain some which are often omitted; but, if they err on either hand, I am confident they err less than any other set of rules ever yet formed for the same purpose. Walker, from whom Murray borrowed his rules for spelling, declares for an expulsion of the second l from traveller, gambolled, grovelling, equalling, cavilling, and all similar words; seems more willing to drop an l from illness, stillness, shrillness, fellness, and drollness, than to retain both in smallness, tallness, chillness, dullness, and fullness; makes it one of his orthographical aphorisms, that, "Words taken into composition often drop those letters which were superfluous in their simples; as, Christmas, dunghil, handful;" and, at the same time, chooses rather to restore the silent e to the ten derivatives from move and prove, from which Johnson dropped it, than to drop it from the ten similar words in which that author retained it! And not only so, he argues against the principle of his own aphorism; and says, "It is certainly to be feared that, if this pruning of our words of all the superfluous letters, as they are called, should be much farther indulged, we shall quickly antiquate our most respectable authors, and irreparably maim our language."—Walker's Rhyming Dict., p. xvii.

OBS. 27.—No attempt to subject our orthography to a system of phonetics, seems likely to meet with general favour, or to be free from objection, if it should. For words are not mere sounds, and in their orthography more is implied than in phonetics, or phonography. Ideographic forms have, in general, the advantage of preserving the identity, history, and lineage of words; and these are important matters in respect to which phonetic writing is very liable to be deficient. Dr. Johnson, about a century ago, observed, "There have been many schemes offered for the emendation and settlement of our orthography, which, like that of other nations, being formed by chance, or according to the fancy of the earliest writers in rude ages, was at first very various and uncertain, and [is] as yet sufficiently irregular. Of these reformers some have endeavoured to accommodate orthography better to the pronunciation, without considering that this is to measure by a shadow, to take that for a model or standard which is changing while they apply it. Others, less absurdly indeed, but with equal unlikelihood of success, have endeavoured to proportion the number of letters to that of sounds, that every sound may have its own character, and every character a single sound. Such would be the orthography of a new language to be formed by a synod of grammarians upon principles of science. But who can hope to prevail on nations to change their practice, and make all their old books useless? or what advantage would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion and perplexity of such an alteration?"—Johnson's Grammar before Quarto Dict., p. 4.

OBS. 28.—Among these reformers of our alphabet and orthography, of whose schemes he gives examples, the Doctor mentions, first, "Sir Thomas Smith, secretary of state to Queen Elizabeth, a man of real learning, and much practised in grammatical disquisitions;" who died in 1597;—next, "Dr. Gill, the celebrated master of St. Paul's School in London;" who died in 1635;—then, "Charles Butler, a man who did not want an understanding which might have qualified him for better employment;" who died in 1647;—and, lastly, "Bishop Wilkins, of Chester, a learned and ingenious critic, who is said to have proposed his scheme, without expecting to be followed;" he died in 1672.

OBS. 29.—From this time, there was, so far as I know, no noticeable renewal of such efforts, till about the year 1790, when, as it is shown above on page 134 of my Introduction, Dr. Webster, (who was then only "Noah Webster, Jun., attorney at law,") attempted to spell all words as they are spoken, without revising the alphabet—a scheme which his subsequent experience before many years led him to abandon. Such a reformation was again attempted, about forty years after, by an other young lawyer, the late lamented Thomas S. Grimke, of South Carolina, but with no more success. More recently, phonography, or phonetic writing, has been revived, and to some extent spread, by the publications of Isaac Pitman, of Bath, England, and of Dr. Andrew Comstock, of Philadelphia. The system of the former has been made known in America chiefly by the lectures and other efforts of Andrews and Boyle, of Dr. Stone, a citizen of Boston, and of E. Webster, a publisher in Philadelphia.

OBS. 30.—The pronunciation of words being evidently as deficient in regularity, in uniformity, and in stability, as is their orthography, if not more so, cannot be conveniently made the measure of their written expression. Concerning the principle of writing and printing by sounds alone, a recent writer delivers his opinion thus: "Let me here observe, as something not remote from our subject, but, on the contrary, directly bearing upon it, that I can conceive no [other] method of so effectually defacing and barbarizing our English tongue, no [other] scheme that would go so far to empty it, practically at least and for us, of all the hoarded wit, wisdom, imagination, and history which it contains, to cut the vital nerve which connects its present with the past, as the introduction of the scheme of 'phonetic spelling,' which some have lately been zealously advocating among us; the principle of which is, that all words should be spelt according as they are sounded, that the writing should be, in every case, subordinated to the speaking. The tacit assumption that it ought so to be, is the pervading error running through the whole system."—R. C. Trench, on the Study of Words, p. 177.

OBS. 31.—The phonographic system of stenography, tachygraphy, or short-hand writing, is, I incline to believe, a very great improvement upon the earlier methods. It is perhaps the most reliable mode of taking down speeches, sermons, or arguments, during their delivery, and reporting them for the press; though I cannot pronounce upon this from any experience of my own in the practice of the art. And it seems highly probable, if it has not been fully proved, that children may at first be taught to read more readily, and with better articulation, from phonetic print, or phonotypy, as it has been called, than from books that exhibit words in their current or established orthography. But still it is questionable whether it is not best for them to learn each word at first by its peculiar or ideographic form—the form in which they must ultimately learn to read it, and which indeed constitutes its only orthography.