AN ACRE OF WORDS ABOUT AKER.Ourspellingacreaccording to Webster’s former method[1]—aker, has attracted no little attention, in a small way, both far and near. It is very difficult to fix on any rule for anything in our language. Etymology is chiefly useful in settling the primitive signification, and is, or ought to be, scarcely at all authoritative in orthography. Where two languages are very different, it is absurd to attempt the forms of the one in the other. In respect toidiom, no one dreams of transferring it from one to another. Oftentimes it is equally absurd to transfer mere literation, as in the Greek-blooded wordPhthisicfor Tisic, or as Walker would have spelled it,Phthisick! Who rebels becausedemesne, as it is written in our best authors until within a little time, is now spelleddomain? We see no reason why Anglicized words should, against all our notions of sound, retain a cumbrous foreign spelling. Words adopted into a language by theear, which are spoken before they are written, generally conform, on being written, to our modes of spelling. But words introduced first by the eye, as they are written, for a long time wear the original spelling. Thus some foreign words are spelled by one method, and some by another.Custom is usually regarded as determinate, in the matter of spelling, pronunciation, idiom, purity, etc. But, in respect to spelling, custom is not long the same. If one will examine our literature from the time of HenryVIII., he will find a constant succession of changes in spelling, both for good and for bad.Ihas been generally substituted forY, as inLykwyse,accordynge,beyng,certayne. Sir Thomas More wrotehym,thynges,desyer,myndes. Skelton, the Poet Laureat, hascentencyously,dyd,advysynge,hyll, etc., etc.There has, too, and wisely, been a constant tendency to drop allunsoundedletters. What earthly use is there of lugging along letters which are entirely mute? In old but classic authors we have Goddedydde, nowe, whiche, pulle, beste, suche, couerte(court) beetwene, begunne, etc.Within our own memory the finalkis lopped of from words where it had a perfect sinecure, as in musick, etc. “Kan’t kum it,” does not look any more odd to our eyes than our spelling would have looked to those who wrote one hundred years ago.If it be asked why we do not spell every word by the same rule that we do some; we reply, that violent, and sudden changes in languages areimpracticable; and as in everything else, are not desirable. We are glad to see spelling simplified, and shall move along just as fast as we can do it with a reasonable prospect of carrying the public.It is not a matter of conscience; we have no necessity laid upon us to reform the language; no call to beliteralmartyrs; it is a matter ofconvenienceandtaste, to be done or omitted as one pleases. It would be more inconvenient to stand alone with all writers against us, for the sake of spelling consistently, than to spell foolishly and superfluously in conformity to inveterate practice. Therefore, for the sake of company, we still spell quite absurdly.It is calledinconsistent; and by men, too, who spell trough, cough, enough, though; through, bought, six dissimilar sounds (ou,ow,oo,o,uf,off), by the same combination of letters! If consistency be the question, every English writer that ever lived, is a mere bundle of inconsistencies. Every continental living language, and the dead classic languages, have thrown in their contributions, and our tongue comprises the scraps, odds and ends, of all lands, with all the diverse peculiarities of each language more or less retained. Under such circumstances, when no man writes a sentence without spelling inconsistently, it is quite ridiculous to oppose a simplification of spelling, becausewe cannot do, at once, what it is only practicable to do gradually. As fast as the public is able to bear it, we shall be glad to reduce all cumbrous spelling to a consistent simplicity.An acquaintance declares, that the derivation ofAKERfrom the Latin and Greek, is “without the least foundation in the words as used in the Greek and Latin and in the English, and built entirely on the resemblance of sounds,” etc. The facts are the other way. In the Greek, and in the Latin, it meant simply a field, an open, cultivated spot. Now, this was the meaning of the word in English, until it was by statutes limited to a particular quantity (31Ed. III.; 5Ed. I., 24; HenryVIII., as quoted by Webster) and this is the meaning yet, of the word in German (acker) Swedish (acker) Dutch (akker). There is, therefore, ample foundation in theuseof the word; and thesoundour friend gives up.In almost all the languages of the Teutonic family, of which ours is one, the word is still spelled withk; and so it is in the Asiatic languages, from which, probably, both the Teutonic and the Greek, alike borrowed it.The spelling acre, as also centre, theatrewe, probably, derived from the French; to which language we owe the emasculation of many a noble Saxon word.In theNew England Farmerour orthographical sins are thus set in order before us:“TheWestern Farmer and Gardener, is an excellent journal—very. It has only one feature that we dislike,viz.—it spellsACREa-k-e-r! We are somewhat surprised atBro.Beecher, who usually evinces such good taste, as well as such good sense, should adopt such an ugly-looking substitute for an old word of so much better appearance, although supported in it by the prince of lexicographers.“A-k-e-r!Wheugh!Bro.editors,hootat it till itshall become obsolete. In Todd’s, Johnson’s, and Walker’s, and Worcester’s dictionaries,fuelis spelledfewel, as the most correct way. This is odd enough and bad enough—but it is hardly so unsightly asaker.”Nothing becomes obsolete until it has been in vogue. But pass that: what a sight will the hooting confraternity present! I imagine Maine Farmer Holmes—a plump, short, dapper gentleman, giving a long howl, that sounds so ludicrous, that he draws back from the open window to laugh. Our more sober Breck performs the euphonious duty with such conscientious heartiness, that up starts the man of Buckwheat from his (mis-spelled) Ploughman’s chair, as also does the Cultivator Cole—a trio not practiced to sing together. The uproar reaches Albany, and surprises him of the Cultivator, who hoots supplementary, with such voice as he happens, in his surprise, to have on hand. Next, toward the west, Dr. Lee shall give a scientific roar or hoot such as will make his laboratory jar again. Down across the lake the hooting (nothunting) chorus goes (what will the sailors think is to pay!) to Elliot of the yard-long-named Magazine, who, hoarse with lake fogs and winds, shall put in so bass a hoot, that Wight and Wright of thePrairie Farmerwill howl of mere fright, if for nothing else.Audacious men! we utterly defy you! We shall pass by the whole crowing brood of Polands, Dorkings and what-not; and raise a breed of genuine owls, to be our champions in this dire necessity. We say, peremptorily, that we will not bet on any match between hooting birds and hooting editors. But our serious opinion is, that, in grave solemnity of looks, and in professional hooting, a half dozen well-trained owls will beat the whole of you. However, we are open to conviction.[1]Two-volume edition, imperial octavo.
Ourspellingacreaccording to Webster’s former method[1]—aker, has attracted no little attention, in a small way, both far and near. It is very difficult to fix on any rule for anything in our language. Etymology is chiefly useful in settling the primitive signification, and is, or ought to be, scarcely at all authoritative in orthography. Where two languages are very different, it is absurd to attempt the forms of the one in the other. In respect toidiom, no one dreams of transferring it from one to another. Oftentimes it is equally absurd to transfer mere literation, as in the Greek-blooded wordPhthisicfor Tisic, or as Walker would have spelled it,Phthisick! Who rebels becausedemesne, as it is written in our best authors until within a little time, is now spelleddomain? We see no reason why Anglicized words should, against all our notions of sound, retain a cumbrous foreign spelling. Words adopted into a language by theear, which are spoken before they are written, generally conform, on being written, to our modes of spelling. But words introduced first by the eye, as they are written, for a long time wear the original spelling. Thus some foreign words are spelled by one method, and some by another.
Custom is usually regarded as determinate, in the matter of spelling, pronunciation, idiom, purity, etc. But, in respect to spelling, custom is not long the same. If one will examine our literature from the time of HenryVIII., he will find a constant succession of changes in spelling, both for good and for bad.Ihas been generally substituted forY, as inLykwyse,accordynge,beyng,certayne. Sir Thomas More wrotehym,thynges,desyer,myndes. Skelton, the Poet Laureat, hascentencyously,dyd,advysynge,hyll, etc., etc.
There has, too, and wisely, been a constant tendency to drop allunsoundedletters. What earthly use is there of lugging along letters which are entirely mute? In old but classic authors we have Goddedydde, nowe, whiche, pulle, beste, suche, couerte(court) beetwene, begunne, etc.
Within our own memory the finalkis lopped of from words where it had a perfect sinecure, as in musick, etc. “Kan’t kum it,” does not look any more odd to our eyes than our spelling would have looked to those who wrote one hundred years ago.
If it be asked why we do not spell every word by the same rule that we do some; we reply, that violent, and sudden changes in languages areimpracticable; and as in everything else, are not desirable. We are glad to see spelling simplified, and shall move along just as fast as we can do it with a reasonable prospect of carrying the public.
It is not a matter of conscience; we have no necessity laid upon us to reform the language; no call to beliteralmartyrs; it is a matter ofconvenienceandtaste, to be done or omitted as one pleases. It would be more inconvenient to stand alone with all writers against us, for the sake of spelling consistently, than to spell foolishly and superfluously in conformity to inveterate practice. Therefore, for the sake of company, we still spell quite absurdly.
It is calledinconsistent; and by men, too, who spell trough, cough, enough, though; through, bought, six dissimilar sounds (ou,ow,oo,o,uf,off), by the same combination of letters! If consistency be the question, every English writer that ever lived, is a mere bundle of inconsistencies. Every continental living language, and the dead classic languages, have thrown in their contributions, and our tongue comprises the scraps, odds and ends, of all lands, with all the diverse peculiarities of each language more or less retained. Under such circumstances, when no man writes a sentence without spelling inconsistently, it is quite ridiculous to oppose a simplification of spelling, becausewe cannot do, at once, what it is only practicable to do gradually. As fast as the public is able to bear it, we shall be glad to reduce all cumbrous spelling to a consistent simplicity.
An acquaintance declares, that the derivation ofAKERfrom the Latin and Greek, is “without the least foundation in the words as used in the Greek and Latin and in the English, and built entirely on the resemblance of sounds,” etc. The facts are the other way. In the Greek, and in the Latin, it meant simply a field, an open, cultivated spot. Now, this was the meaning of the word in English, until it was by statutes limited to a particular quantity (31Ed. III.; 5Ed. I., 24; HenryVIII., as quoted by Webster) and this is the meaning yet, of the word in German (acker) Swedish (acker) Dutch (akker). There is, therefore, ample foundation in theuseof the word; and thesoundour friend gives up.
In almost all the languages of the Teutonic family, of which ours is one, the word is still spelled withk; and so it is in the Asiatic languages, from which, probably, both the Teutonic and the Greek, alike borrowed it.
The spelling acre, as also centre, theatrewe, probably, derived from the French; to which language we owe the emasculation of many a noble Saxon word.
In theNew England Farmerour orthographical sins are thus set in order before us:
“TheWestern Farmer and Gardener, is an excellent journal—very. It has only one feature that we dislike,viz.—it spellsACREa-k-e-r! We are somewhat surprised atBro.Beecher, who usually evinces such good taste, as well as such good sense, should adopt such an ugly-looking substitute for an old word of so much better appearance, although supported in it by the prince of lexicographers.
“A-k-e-r!Wheugh!Bro.editors,hootat it till itshall become obsolete. In Todd’s, Johnson’s, and Walker’s, and Worcester’s dictionaries,fuelis spelledfewel, as the most correct way. This is odd enough and bad enough—but it is hardly so unsightly asaker.”
Nothing becomes obsolete until it has been in vogue. But pass that: what a sight will the hooting confraternity present! I imagine Maine Farmer Holmes—a plump, short, dapper gentleman, giving a long howl, that sounds so ludicrous, that he draws back from the open window to laugh. Our more sober Breck performs the euphonious duty with such conscientious heartiness, that up starts the man of Buckwheat from his (mis-spelled) Ploughman’s chair, as also does the Cultivator Cole—a trio not practiced to sing together. The uproar reaches Albany, and surprises him of the Cultivator, who hoots supplementary, with such voice as he happens, in his surprise, to have on hand. Next, toward the west, Dr. Lee shall give a scientific roar or hoot such as will make his laboratory jar again. Down across the lake the hooting (nothunting) chorus goes (what will the sailors think is to pay!) to Elliot of the yard-long-named Magazine, who, hoarse with lake fogs and winds, shall put in so bass a hoot, that Wight and Wright of thePrairie Farmerwill howl of mere fright, if for nothing else.
Audacious men! we utterly defy you! We shall pass by the whole crowing brood of Polands, Dorkings and what-not; and raise a breed of genuine owls, to be our champions in this dire necessity. We say, peremptorily, that we will not bet on any match between hooting birds and hooting editors. But our serious opinion is, that, in grave solemnity of looks, and in professional hooting, a half dozen well-trained owls will beat the whole of you. However, we are open to conviction.
[1]Two-volume edition, imperial octavo.