Part 27 (1/2)

OBS 10--As the authors of -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 seeument, lest the student bewords: ”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 __, where, if the _k_ were o; and as _c_ before _i_ is always sounded like _s, it_ _ 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 -Book_, p 2 I need not tell the reader that these two sentences evince great want of care or skill in the art of grauage 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 forimcrack, ticktack, picknick, barrack, knapsack, hollyhock, shamrock, hammock, hillock, haument 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 nuular derivation fro words of more than one syllable, which have co 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 ht as well double the _l_, as our ancestors did, in _naturall, temporall, spirituall_, &c

OBS 11--The learner should observe that soome others are doubled but seldo 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, iide of _u_ is precluded by the fact that we have a distinct letter called _Double-u_, which wastwo Vees, or two Ues, when the for 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 soe, 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,) ill have _fillipping, gossipping_, and _worshi+pping_, to be needful exceptions also

OBS 12--Final _s_ sole, as in _alas, atlas, bias_; and especially in Latin words, as _virus, impetus_; and when it is added to forenerally 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 froossip_, and perhaps also _worshi+p_ 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 theossipped_, and _worshi+pped_, with the other derivatives from the same roots, are just and necessary exceptions to Rule 4th, (which I do not ader 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 for of _compounds_, it may possibly happen, that two Aitches, two Kays, or even two Double-ues or Wies, shall coether; as in _withhold, brickkiln, slooorm, bayyarn_

OBS 13--There are some words--as those which coil, 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 ren correspondents But let hiy raphy, y, illaceous, axillar, axillary, cavillous, cavillation, papillate, papillous, papillary, tranquillity, and pupillary, with double _l_, ignorance of itmetaline, 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 Etyy? our own, or that which is foreign? If we say, both, they disagree; and the uided 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_,to the reduplication, and that, in spite of our own rules to the contrary? Why is it e _pupillaris_ to _pupilary_, than _pupillus_ to _pupil_? or, to change _tranquillitas_ to _tranquility_, than _tranquillus_ to _tranquil_? And since _papilous, pupilage_, and _tranquilize_ are forlish words, and not directly from the Latin, why is it not as improper to write thee_, 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 le _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, froil_[121] is _arcilla_, froilla_; 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 le _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 knoe spell as we do? For exa words, which I copy froe; wor'shi+p, wor'shi+pper;--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;--y;--civil, civilize, civility; tranquil, tranquillize, tranquillity;--novel, novelisroveller?

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 Coard to their own principle, neither their doctrine nor their practice can be of ht either way Yet it is important to knoords the rule is, or is not, applicable In considering this vexatious question about the duplication of _l_, I was at first inclined to adlish by dropping the second _l_ of a foreign root, the word shall resu a ter 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 sole Hence the difficulty of drawing a line by which we e_ and _pu'pillary_, with _ll_, are according to _Walker's Rhye_ 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 Rhy Dictionary, writes thele _l_, like _dialist, formalist, cabalist, herbalist_, and twenty other such words Further: Webster doubles the _l_ in all the derivatives of _il_, 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 fro in _l_ not under the accent ”No letter,” says Walker, ”seems to be more frequently doubled i, revelling_, and yet _offering, suffering, reasoning_, I aive 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”--_Rhy adopted by soreatin _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 ainst doubling Besides, a large nun 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, ly we find, that, in his work of expulsion, Dr Webster has not unfrequently contradicted hi 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 corruptedthe 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 lish_ 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 nu in _able_ or _ible_, as _affable, arable, tolerable, admissible, credible, infallible_, to the number of nine hundred or nification of some of these, there occurs no s of which is in Horne Tooke supposes it to have coth_; and consequently avers, that it ”has nothing to do with the Latin adjective _habilis, fit_, or _able_, froists erroneously derive it”--_Diversions of Purley_, Vol ii, p 450 This I suppose the etyists 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 terht to have, such a signification as ives thenification in which the English and the Latin derivatives exactly correspond Thus _dis'soluble_ or _dissolv'able_ does notdissolved_; and _divisible_ or _dividable_ does notdivided_

OBS 18--As to the application of this suffix to nouns, e consider the signification of the words thus formed, its propriety may well be doubted It is true, however, that nouns do soive 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 theous to that of the real verbals But, surely, thewhich is coeable, fashi+onable, favourable, peaceable, reasonable, pleasurable, seasonable, suitable_, and souessed fro_ 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 co of the parts united is arded than in the latter; yet, in the use of words of this foreneral analogy of their signification as stated above; and not to s so very different as do soeneral notion of their impropriety, that several words of this doubtful character have already beco into disuse: as, _accustomable, chanceable, concordable, conusable, customable, behoovable, leisurable, medicinable, personable, powerable, razorable, shapable, seeable, veritable_ Still, there are several others, yet currently eive place to ular 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 soht to be preferred; as whether we ought to write _tenable_ or _tenible, reversable_ or _reversible, addable_ or _addible_ In Latin, the ter vowel is deters Thus, for verbs of the first conjugation, it is _a_; as, froh, _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 froation, 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 thelish scholar cannot avail hireater number than were ever known in Latin A fee have borrowed from the French: as, _tenable, capable, preferable, convertible_; and these rite as they are written in French But the difficulty lies chiefly in those which are of English growth For so to the model of the Latin verbals in _ibilis_; as _forcible, coercible, reducible, discernible_; and others arethe suffix _able_; as _traceable, pronounceable, lish; 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 soraphy and pronunciation, but conveying the sa; 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 solish scholar to be spelled in a very contradictory h each, perhaps, obeys the law of its own derivation; as, _peaceable_ and _forcible, iible, daeable_ 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 seeerated 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 iines, 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, eable_; and so for all the rest that coe there ht 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 gra observation,these difficult words entirely by guess, they will not miss the way more than soiven by John Burn, for _able_ and _ible_, is less objectionable; but it is rendered useless by the great number of its exceptions

OBS 23--Asrefer 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 wordsDictionary, 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 terlish word, except that which is formed of its own capital _I_; and the feords which end with _u_ are all foreign, except _thou_ and _you_ And not only so, the letter _j_ is as formerly called _i consonant_; and _v_ is as 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 feords of French origin, as _livre, manoeuvre_; or with _l_ in solish 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 rite _packet, lackey, checker, risk, mask_, and _mosk_, rather than _paquet, laquey, chequer, risque, rotesk_, 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 ieneral correspondence ofof ”a potential active signification; as _purgative, voetic_, &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 refor the final _e_ from the former

OBS 25--In Dr Webster's ”Collection of Essays and _Fugitiv Peeces_,”

published in 1790, we find, araphy, a general o 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 , 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 predica subject to reduplication For he that rite _hav, giv_, and _liv_, ivving_, and _livving_ And not only so, there will follow also, in the soleiveth_, 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 soine With a levity no less remarkable, does the author of the _Red Book_ propose at once two different ways of reforeable_, 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 i_ into _j_;” as, _piersable, ht assuible_, &c--_Red Book_, p 170 Noould not this ”useful iive 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 ta 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 hi their written elelish language is ever reduced to greater regularity than it now exhibits, the reforht by those who have no disposition either to exaggerate its present defects, or to undertake too in, as well as to the sounds, of words To many people, all silent letters see, absurd Hence, as the learner e 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 oular always retained The rules which I have laid down as principles of discrienerally true, and agreeable to present usage, though several of therammar 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, fro, declares for an expulsion of the second _l_ fro_, and all si to drop an _l_ from _illness, stillness, shrillness, fellness_, and _drollness_, than to retain both in _smallness, tallness, chillness, dullness_, and _fullness_; raphical aphorisms, that, ”Words taken into composition often drop those letters which were superfluous in their sihil, 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 ed, we shall quickly antiquate our e”--_Walker's Rhy Dict_, p xvii

OBS 27--No atteraphy to a systeeneral favour, or to be free from objection, if it should For words are not raphy_ raphic for the identity, history, and lineage of words; and these are i is very liable to be deficient Dr Johnson, about a century ago, observed, ”There have been many scheraphy, which, like that of other nations, being for 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 reforraphy better to the pronunciation, without considering that this is to measure by a shadow, to take that for awhile 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 le sound Such would be the orthography of a new language to be forrammarians upon principles of science

But who can hope to prevail on nations to change their practice, and e would a new orthography procure equivalent to the confusion and perplexity of such an alteration?”--_Johnson's Gra these reforives examples, the Doctor mentions, first, ”_Sir Thomas Smith_, secretary of state to Queen Elizabeth, a rammatical 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 ht 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 sche 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_, (as then only ”_Noah Webster, Jun_, attorney at law,”) atte the alphabet--a scheme which his subsequent experience before ain atte lawyer, the late lamented _Thomas S Grimke_, of South Carolina, but with no , has been revived, and to some extent spread, by the publications of _Isaac Pitland, 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 uniforraphy, if not more so, cannot be convenientlythe principle of writing and printing by sounds alone, a recent writer delivers his opinion thus: ”Letnot re upon it, that I can conceive no [other] lish tongue, no [other] scheo so far to empty it, practically at least and for us, of all the hoarded isdoination, and history which it contains, to cut the vital nerve which connects its present with the past, as the introduction of the sche,' which so 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 assu through the whole system”--_R C Trench, on the Study of Words_, p 177