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

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