22 This word is, I believe, customarily pronounced Mackinaw, and the original may well be suffered to fall into disuse.
23 We hear it said that a lexicographer should adopt or follow the common orthography of words. This is true when the orthography accords with etymology, and is settled or undisputed. But in the English language there are many words whose spelling is not settled; some whose spelling is a deviation from established analogies; some whose spelling presents wrong component syllables or radical letters. In other words, whose origin is known, authors differ in the manner of writing them. Take the following examples.
In Johnson’s Dictionary we find blamable, blamably, appeasable, approvable, desirable, ratable, without the final e of the original words; but saleable, tameable, with e; proveable, with e; improvable, reprovable, without it; moveable, with e, but immovable, removable, without it. Daniel H. Barnes, in the Red Book, remarks that in this class of words, Johnson’s contradictions (discrepancies) are ten on one side, and nine on the other. We every day see the like discrepancies in books and the public prints.
Johnson has cognisee, cognisour, recognise, recognisee, recognisor, with s, but cognizable and cognizance, with z, and the terminating syllable sour and sor. Walker has authorize, authorization; but disauthorise. Johnson and Walker have cauterize, cauterization, but epitomise; canonize, familiarize, fertilize, with z, but Johnson, modernise, Walker, modernize; Johnson, syllogize, but Walker, syllogise; both have extemporize, temporize, but contemporise, equalise; Walker has amortise, but amortization, amortizement. Similar discrepancies are seen in all our books and papers.
We every day see surprise and surprize; merchandise and merchandize; enquire and inquire; entrust and intrust; ensure, ensurance, and insure, insurance; endorse, endorsement, and indorse, indorsement; gulf and gulph; partisan and partizan; connection and connexion; chemist and chymist, both wrong; hedge, pledge, but allege, and many others. What then, and where is the common orthography?
In our language, the unqualified rule of following the common orthography can not have place, for in respect to many words there is no such thing. It is, therefore, wrong in principle, for it would sanction mistakes and tend to perpetuate them; it would preclude correctness and regularity. Such a rule would have been as just in the age of Chaucer as it is now, and had it been observed, what would have been the present state of English orthography?
Many of the anomalies in our language have originated in carelessness or in mistakes, respecting the origin of words. Philology, for a long series of years, has been most shamefully neglected.
In this condition of our language, I hold it to be the duty of a lexicographer to ascertain, as far as it is practicable, the genuine orthography of words, and introduce that which is correct; particularly when the true orthography serves to illustrate their signification. When this is known, men will be satisfied with it, and fluctuations of spelling will cease. With a full conviction of the value of truth and correctness in language, as in every other department of literature, I have diligently sought for truth, and made it the guide of my decisions. I can not consent to give countenance to errors which obscure the origin or pervert the signification of words, and be an instrument of corrupting the purity and disfiguring the beauty of the language. A due regard to the purity of the language, to the convenience of learners, whether citizens or foreigners, and to the usefulness of a language which is to be the most extensive on the globe, and the chief instrument of civilizing and christianizing nations, seems to demand, and surely justifies the labor of correcting the more enormous anomalies which deform it. One would suppose that these considerations, concurring with the honor of our nation, would induce the lovers of literature to make some concessions of private opinions for the accomplishment of these desirable objects.
25 From the fact, which Walker relates of himself, (Prin. 246,) that he made a distinction between the sound of ee in flee and in meet, until he had consulted good speakers, and particularly Mr. Garrick, who could find no difference in the sound, it might be inferred that his ear was not very accurate. But his mistake evidently arose from not attending to the effect of the articulation in the latter word, which stops the sound suddenly, but does not vary it. It is the same mistake which he made in the sound of i in the second syllable of ability, which he calls short, while the sound of the second i and of y is that of long e. The celebrity of Walker as a teacher of elocution, and his Key to the Pronunciation of Ancient Names, which, with a few exceptions, is a good standard work, have led many persons to put more confidence in his English Orthoepy, than a close examination of its principles will support.
26 Walker’s Dictionary has been trumpeted, in this country, as the standard of orthoepy in England. This is so far from the truth, that three later compilers of pronouncing dictionaries, living in London, have expressly condemned his pronunciation in whole classes of words.
Walker’s notation of a before s, in such words as lass, last, past, giving a the short sound it has in fan, lack, is condemned by Jones, who calls it a mincing, modern affectation. Walker’s giving to oo in look, took, and others, the same sound as in tooth, tool, is condemned by the same author. Walker’s giving to the short i and y the sound of ee or long e, in such words as glory, probity, which, by his notation, are to be pronounced gloree, probeetee, Jones pronounces to be ludicrous. This error extends to more than eleven thousand syllables.
Walker’s change of the sound of d into that of j, in certain classes of words, is condemned by Jameson. He remarks that Walker’s adjulation for adulation; compenjeum for compendium; ingrejent for ingredient, if spoken with solemnity, would be intolerable. He condemns, also, Walker’s change of tu into tsh, in such words as congratshulation, flatshulent, natshural. This pronunciation, Knowles, a still later compiler, declares to be absolute pedantry and vulgarity.
27 The multiplicity of books for instructing us in our vernacular language, is an evil of no small magnitude. Every man has some peculiar notions which he wishes to propagate, and there is scarcely any peculiarity or absurdity for which some authority may not be found. The facility of bookmaking favors this disposition; and while a chief qualification for authorship is a dextrous use of an inverted pen, and a pair of scissors, we are not to expect relief from the evil.
28 The French language, by the loss or imperfect use of articulations, though rendered easy in utterance, has become so feeble in sound as to be unfit for bold, impressive eloquence. From the specimens which I witnessed in the Chamber of Deputies in Paris, I should suppose the orator must depend almost entirely on his own animation and action for success in popular speaking, with little or no aid from the strength and beauty of language. The language of popular eloquence should be neither the mouthing cant of the stage, nor the mincing affectation of dandies, nor the baby talk of the nursery. Such was not the language of Demosthenes nor of Cicero; and such may never be the language of the British Chatham, and of the American Ames.
29 Of the full value of these encomiums we can hardly judge, as most of Varro’s writings have perished, and some of those which survive appear in a mutilated form. But the greater his erudition, the more striking will appear his ignorance of this subject.
30 Thus far had I written, before I had seen this author's H ermes S cythicus. By this work I find the author agrees with me in regard to the identity and common origin of many of the Gothic and Greek prepositions. Indeed, I had supposed that proof of such an obvious fact could hardly be necessary, in the present state of philological knowledge. Some of these prepositions he has illustrated with a good degree of accuracy; although, should this work ever fall into his hands, I think he will be convinced that in one or two important points, his explanations are defective. In regard to other prepositions, I am satisfied the author has ventured upon unsafe ground, at least his opinions appear to me not to be well supported.
In respect to his explanations of the names of the mythological deities, it appears to me the author, like all other authors whose works I have seen, wanders in darkness. From all my researches into the origin of words, I have drawn this conclusion, that the pagan deities are mostly the powers or supposed powers of nature, or imaginary beings supposed to preside over the various parts of creation, or the qualities of men, deified, that is, exalted and celebrated as supernatural agents. There are few of the names of these deities which I pretend to understand; but there are a few of them that seem to be too obvious to be mistaken. No person, I think, can doubt that the Dryads are named from δρυς, an oak or tree. Hence I infer that this name was applied to certain imaginary beings inhabiting the forests.
No person can doubt that Nereus, the deity of the sea, and the nereids, nymphs of the sea, are named from the Oriental נדר, نَهْرُ, a river, from the corresponding verb, to flow. No person doubts that Flora, the goddess of flowers, is merely flower deified.
Hence I infer that the true method of discovering the origin of the pagan deities, is to find the meaning of their names.
Now Diana is the goddess of hunting. What quality then is most necessary for a hunter? What quality would rude men, destitute of the weapons which we possess, most value as useful in obtaining subsistence? Doubtless courage and swiftness. Thus we have substantial reasons for believing that Diana is the Celtic dan or dian, which signifies bold, strong, vehement, impetuous, the root of Danube, Don, and other names of large rivers.
If we examine the name of Minerva, we shall find that the first syllable contains the elements of manus, the hand, and of mind; and the last constituent part of the word correspond well with the German arbeit, D. arbeid, labor, work, the last consonant being lost. Well, what are the characteristics of Minerva? Why, she is the goddess of wisdom and of the arts. The sense of μενος, would give one of her characteristics, and that of manus and arbeit, the other; but which is the true word, I do not know.
The two circumstances which chiefly distinguish Hercules, his labors and his club. We never hear of Hercules but with these accompaniments. Now the first syllable of his name is precisely the root of the Greek εργον, εργαω, that is εργ or ερκ, which would give the sense of work, labor. Whether the last constituent of the name is κλειος, or from that root, I shall not pretend to affirm. Indeed, I offer these explanations rather as probable, than as clearly proved; but they do appear to be probably well founded. Hercules, then, was a name given to any bold, heroic leader of a tribe of rude men, who was distinguished for his achievements as a warrior; and this name must have originated in very early ages, when clubs were the principal weapons of war, and instruments of defense. And hence, probably, the origin of the scepter, as a badge of royalty. Now it is worthy of remark, that the war club of rude nations, at this day, especially of the savage nations of the South Sea Isles, is of the same shape as the ancient scepter.
31 There is, among some poets of the present day, an affection of reviving the use of obsolete words. Some of these may, perhaps, be revived to advantage; but when this practice proceeds so far as to make a glossary necessary to the understanding of a poem, it seems to be a violation of good taste. How different is the simple elegance of Dryden, Pope, Gray, Goldsmith, and Cowper!
32 The Spanish puño is the Latin pugnus; and our word pawn, the D. pand, is the Latin pignus. So we pronounce impune, for impugn, French impugner, from the Latin pugno, pugna. How far these facts tend to show the Latin pronunciation, let the reader judge.
33 It is said by some writer, that the accent never falls on a vowel, but always on a consonant. This is a great mistake. The last syllable of foresee has the accent on the last syllable, and on the vowels which end the syllable. In open, the accent is on the first syllable in which there is no consonant.
34 The English orthoepists alledge that the letter c, in such words, has the sound of sh. This is a mistake; the pronunciation of sh, in such words, is the effect of blending the sound of c with the following vowel. This mistake has misled Walker and others into a multitude of errors.
|