Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

But when I see a difficult and unnatural orthography, which originated in mere mistake, and which converts a word into palpable nonsense, which is the case with the word comptroller; no consideration shall prevent me from correcting it in my own practice. Those who wish for an explanation of that word, will find it in the preface to my Compendious Dictionary.

But in the few alterations of this kind which I propose, I am guided by fixed principles of etymology, and endeavour only to call back the language to the purity of former times, supported by the authority of Newton, Camden, Lhuyd, Davenant, Pope, Thomson, Gregory, Edwards, and a host of other writers.

I do not write publick, republick, because the introduction of k, was originally, a useless innovation, wholly unknown to the primitive English, and because the prevailing practice in Great Britain and America, has revived the primitive etymological orthography, from publicus. I do not write honour, candour, errour, because they are neither French nor Latin. If we follow the French, the orthography ought to be honeur, candeur, erreur ; if the Latin, as we ought, because they are Latin words, then we ought to write honor, &c. and this is now the best and most common usage.

In truth, there are some words whose orthography is unsettled, and the man who writes them in either manner for which he has authority, cannot be charged with deviating from any standard. This has ever been the case with the most eminent authors, and without a perfectly regular orthography, it must

ever be the case.

But I am accused of introducing into my Dictionary Americanism and vulgarisms.

This is one of the most extraordinary charges which my opposers have ventured to suggest. I have indeed introduced into our vocabulary a few words, not used perhaps in Great Britain, or not in a like sense; such as customable, on the authority of a law of Massachusetts; doomage, on the authority of Dr. Belknap, and the laws of New-Hampshire; fourfold, as a verb, on the authority of the laws of Connecticut, and a century's usage; decedent, for deceased, on the authority of the laws of New-Jersey and Pennsylvania; and a few others, probably not twenty, noting them however as local terms. And is this an offense never to be forgiven? Such local terms exist, and will exist, in spite of lexicographers or critics. Is this my fault? And if local terms exist, why not explain them? Must they be left unexplained, because they are local? This very circumstance renders their insertion in a dictionary the more necessary; for as the faculty of Yale College have said in approbation of this part of my work, how are such words to be understood, without the aid of a dictionary?

But what have I done, that others have not done before me ? Has not Johnson admitted hog, a sheep, and tup, a ram, upon the authority of local usage in England? Has he not insert.

[blocks in formation]

ed many such words? And why does he escape the censure of our fastidious American critics? So far is he from being censurable for this admission, that his works would have had more value, if he had taken more pains to collect and explain local terms.

But I have admitted one or two cant words, such as caucus; and what are Johnson's fishefy, jackalent, jiggumbob and foutre !! Let the admirers of Johnson's dictionary be a little more critical in comparing his vocabulary, and mine; and blush for their illiberal treatment of me! Instead of increasing the list of vulgar terms, I have reduced it, by expunging two thirds of such words inserted by Johnson!! Any person who will have the patience and the candor, to compare my dictionary with others, will find that there is not a vocabulary of the English language extant, so free from local, vulgar, and obscene words as mine! It was most injudicious in Johnson to select Shakspeare, as one of his principal authorities. Play-writers in describing low scenes and vulgar characters, use low language, language unfit for decent company; and their ribaldry has corrupted our speech, as well as the public morals. I have made it a main point to reject words belonging to writings of this character, and shall proceed as far as propriety requires, in cleansing the Augean

stable.

I have rejected also a great number of words introduced by a species of pedantry very common a century ago; such as adjugate, abstrude, balbucinate. Of this species, and other words not legitimate, between two and three thousand will be rejected. On the other hand, I have enriched the vocabulary with such words as absorbable, accompaniment, acidulous, achromatic, adhesiveness, adjutancy, admissibility, advisory, amendable, animalize, aneurismal, antithetical, appellor, appreciate, appreciation, arborescent, arborization, ascertainable, bailee, bailment, indorser, indorsee, prescriptive, imprescriptible, statement, insubordination, expenditure, subsidize, and other elegant and scientific terms, now used by the best writers in Great Britain and America. number of these is not exactly known; but of the terms now well authorized, Johnson's dictionary is deficient in five or six thousand words, or about a seventh part of the English vocabulary.

The

But I will trouble you and the public no farther. Enough has been said to satisfy the candid and liberal; and more would not satisfy men of a different character.

THE HON. THOMAS DAWES, Esq.

N. WEBSTER.

POSTCRIPT.

In the remarks prefixed to my letter in the Centinel of August 2, you mention that my omitting a in read (which by the way is a mistake) and in breadth, with a few similar peculiari

ties, has probably had an effect in limiting the circulation of my Elements of Useful Knowledge. This may be true in Boston; but it is not true in all parts of the country, for the work is extensively used. For retrenching the a in bredth, I have however royal authority; and Massachusetts gentlemen should be the last to complain of that correction of error, for it is the orthography of the word in the original charter of the Colony. Hazard. Col. 1. 239, 240.

But I do not insist upon the correction. Men, who are fond of improvement, and desirous of correcting errors in every thing else, seem determined that no errors shall be corrected in language. No blunder, no irregularity, no absurdity, however enormous, in writing, if it has obtained a general currency, must now be disturbed! Not even a barbarism of the fourteenth century must now be violated by the unhallowed hand of reformation! Such is the spirit of critics, but such is not the sense of the community, nine tenths of whom would rejoice at a thorough reformation.

When a plain unlettered man asks why words are so irregularly written, that the letters are no guide to the pronunciation, and the noblest invention of man loses half its value; we may silence, tho not convince him, by saying, that such is the old practice, and we must not deviate from the practice of our grand fathers even when they have erred! But when I see such blunders as comptroller and island palmed upon a nation by the merest ignorance, I confess for myself I cannot repress my desire to correct them, as they disgrace the learning and criticism of the nation. See the preface to my Compendious Dictionary. A few such blunders I shall attempt to correct. The legislature of Connecticut have seen fit to adopt the correct orthography of controller, in their statutes, and I trust the example will be followed by others. But my proposed corrections are few, and my orthography differs from that of the English, not more than English authors differ from each other. The truth is a reformation of orthography might be made with few changes, and upon a plan so simple as not to require an hour's attention to be perfectly master of it; and it might be introduced in a tenth part of the time required to render general the practice of reckoning money by dollars and cents. But I shall not attempt it. If men choose to be perplexed with difficulties in language, which ordinary men are never able to surmount, I will not contend with them, by endeavoring to remove such difficulties against their will,

EDITOR'S NOTES.

N. W.

WE are glad to afford Mr. Webster room to expound and defend his principles in our pages. Discussion will confirm truth, and his answer shall be as widely diffused as our censure. We afforded some encouragement to perseverance in his labours, though we thought he needed little and so far from intending to do him "essential injury" by our observations, we hoped he might profit by them.

;

The answer that Mr. Webster makes to the objection "that he is attempting to alter the English language," though we did not make the charge in such general terms, is very loose and indefinite. In the first part he seems to deny, that our language is to be learned from "authors whose works are in most repute," and to appeal from the decision of “Johnson, Lowth, and English writers of a like character" upon "the real language," its "true orthography," and "explanation of its principles and idioms." But we soon find that he did not mean to be so bold, but has only mistaken the grammar of our language for the language itself; and of the grammar itself, that he will not so much quarrel with things as with names.

The example, by which it is shown that a is not the indefinite article, may be easily turned, we think, like an Indian auxiliary, against its employer. It has, in that sentence, "a reference to more." If Venus were the only star more splendid than Mars, our definite article would be used.

In the next paragraph Mr. Webster thinks he has confuted the notion, that some words, there mentioned, are conjunctions. The sentence, "if you ask, you will receive" is triumphantly brought out as the crux criticorum. Yet if the order of the members be changed, the rule will be applied without difficulty by the merest school-boy. "You will receive, if you ask." It was said formerly, "the nominative case comes before the verb." Now this is not literally, but only substantially true in an interrogative sentence, "am I a grammarian?" where the verb comes first. But this is no great discovery.

Of what follows, relating to the conjunction that, we shall say only, that we agree with Horne Tooke in his resolution and explication of such sentences, though we are perfectly indifferent about the nomenclature of Mr. Webster; nor do we believe that mistakes like that of Montanus necessarily result from the "false or imperfect principles of our grammars, or the erroneous arrangement of the parts of speech."

We feel no compunction from the gentle insinuation that "we are bent on decrying every thing American;" nor should we now take notice of it but that it allows us to remind the publick, that our duty requires more attention to native than to foreign productions, and to assure Mr. Webster, that what we think irregular shall never escape the knife because it is of domestick growth.

On the second letter we shall make no observations, because it is not in answer to any particular remarks of ours; but on the whole subject in controversy, we shall appeal with confidence to the Review of Mr. Webster's letter to Dr. Ramsay, in our fourth volume, page 670, and to the Review of his Grammar, in our fifth volume, page 267. What expectations we have of the great work of Mr. Webster may be understood from the Review of his Compendious Dictionary, which we hope to publish next month.

The Poem of Mr. Head, delivered before the Society of BK OR their last anniversary, is promised for our next number.

[ocr errors]

INTELLIGENCE AND MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES.

FROM FRENCH PAPERS, TRANSLATED FOR THE ANTHOLOGY.

PICTURESQUE TRAVELS IN GREECE.

M de Choiseul Gouffier was unwilling to leave in an imperfect state a work, by which he early announced his taste for the arts, his passion for the fine monuments of antiquity, the views of a statesman, and the talents of a distinguished writer. The first volume appeared in 1782. That was an epoch when the love of the sciences and enthusiasm for the arts possessed the most illustrious missionaries; it was a time too when the minds of all were greedy of illusion. One of the dreams which charmed Voltaire the most, in his old age, that of seeing Greece restored to a state of civilization of which she had been the cradle, seduced many who possessed a lively and brilliant imagination. In reading M. de Choiseul Gouffier, they believed this fine dream was realized; it seemed already as if Greece was going to be repeopled with her heroes, her philosophers, her artists, and her poets, in so lively a manner did this young author express his wishes and his hopes, so well did he know how to animate the august ashes, and raise up their great monu, ments from their ruins. Perhaps we are nearer now to this marvellous event. One prodigy more may revive all the ancient prodigies. But we do not need even this sort of interest to visit with veneration and love the sacred soil of Greece, under the conduct of so ingenious, so faithful and eloquent a guide as M. de Choiseul Gouffier. The first number of the second volume of which we shall give a particular account offers researches equally precious for history, for the arts, and for policy, in fine every thing which makes us feel the charms of truth added to the brilliant gifts of the imagination. This number contains 175 pages of the most beautiful folio text, and twelve plates engraved in the most perfect style. The two following numbers will complete the second, and form the third volume of this beautiful work. Each number costs sixty francs, and they will complete the description of Asiatick Greece, and the islands of the Archipelago. The fourth volume which will appear afterwards, and separate from the others, will give a description of Constantinople, the Bosphorus, Attica, Peloponnesus, and Macedonia.

His imperial majesty has granted a pension of six thousand francs to Mr. Luce de Lancival, author of the tragedy of Hector, and professor of literature at the Imperial Lyceum. The work of Mr. Luce draws crouds to the Theatre Français, and constantly enjoys the most brilliant success. Le Publiciste.

« AnteriorContinuar »