The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (read books for money TXT) 📖

also made many words variable, which ought, unquestionably, to conform to the general principle. RULE XIV.—COMPOUNDS.

Compounds generally retain the orthography of the simple words which compose them: as, wherein, horseman, uphill, shellfish, knee-deep, kneedgrass, kneading-trough, innkeeper, skylight, plumtree, mandrill.

EXCEPTIONS.—1. In permanent compounds, or in any derivatives of which, they are not the roots, the words full and all drop one l; as, handful, careful, fulfil, always, although, withal; in temporary compounds, they retain both; as, full-eyed, chock-full,[119] all-wise, save-all. 2. So the prefix mis, (if from miss, to err,) drops one s; but it is wrong to drop them both, as in Johnson's "mispell" and "mispend," for misspell and misspend. 3. In the names of days, the word mass also drops one s; as, Christmas, Candlemas, Lammas. 4. The possessive case often drops the apostrophe; as in herdsman, kitesfoot. 5. One letter is dropped, if three of the same kind come together: as, Rosshire, chaffinch; or else a hyphen is used: as, Ross-shire, ill-looking, still-life. 6. Chilblain, welcome, and welfare, drop one l. 7. Pastime drops an s. 8. Shepherd, wherever, and whosever, drop an e; and wherefore and therefore assume one.

RULE XV.—USAGE.

Any word for the spelling of which we have no rule but usage, is written wrong if not spelled according to the usage which is most common among the learned: as, "The brewer grinds his malt before he brues his beer."—Red Book, p. 38.

OBSERVATIONS.

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