CHAPTER XV.SOME QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

FOLLOWING are a few actual questions of general interest, with their answers, as they were given in the “Proofroom Notes and Queries” inThe Inland Printer. In each instance the letter precedes its answer, the two being distinguished by the use of different type.

Do you write “1½ inches,” or “1½ inch”?

The difficulty in deciding this question is purely logical. Two or more things must be named to justify the plural verb, says Logic, and “one and a half” is less than two. But “one and a half” is more than one, and the singular verb is grammatically restricted to one only; therefore the grammatical rule should apply, and the plural verb be used with any subject that must be read as “oneandsomething more,” even if the something is only a fraction.

Which sentence is grammatically correct—“Ten dollars was paid,” or “Ten dollars were paid”?

Simply as a matter of grammar, with no deference to sense, the second sentence is right; but as a matter of fact, unless ten separate dollar coins or bills are paid, which seldom happens, “was paid” is much more accurate, as the real meaning is, “The amount of $10 was paid”—one thing that is named by the words that express its equivalent in smaller amounts. “Tendollars” is logically singular when it means one amount of money, and so is “ten million dollars,” although grammatically plural; therefore it is better to use the singular verb for the common intention in sense.

Is it proper to say, “Nine and six is fifteen”?

Those who insist that the rules of grammar should govern all such expressions use the plural verb in such cases, and say “Nine and six are fifteen,” because the words used express more than one thing, and that is plurality. But the logic of it is that “the sum of” the two is so much, and many scholars consequently favor the singular verb.

A correspondent incloses an advertisement containing the sentence, “Failures is the current talk now days,” and requests an opinion as to its correctness.

The sentence is clearly ungrammatical, but it is not uncommon to violate grammar rules in this way under certain circumstances, and it is to be presumed that the writer thought of such circumstances, though he may not have done so. If he thought of a number of individual failures in the plural sense, and wrote “is” to go with the clearly plural sense of the noun, he did not express his thought correctly. But he may have thought of “failures” simply as one subject of talk, and this would at least so far justify the singular verb as to leave its correctness open to discussion. We may say, “‘Failures’ is the subject of his lecture,” and reasonably expect that no one will criticise the expression. Here are three such sentences, noted within a half-hour’s reading while having our correspondent’s question in mind: “The revived Olympic games is the subject oftwo articles.” “A thousand shares of short interest is one result of the raid.” “A few doses is sufficient.” The late Prof. William Dwight Whitney, author of “Essentials of English Grammar,” decided, while editing the Century Dictionary, that “two and two is four” is better than “two and two are four,” because the full sense is “the sum of two and two,” or something similarly unifying the idea of “two and two.” The sentence above questioned would be better if written, “Failure is the current talk,” but “now days” instead ofnowadaysis much more criticisable than the verb.

Which of the following sentences are correct, and by what rule? “Please state whether one or six bottles is desired.” “Please state whether one or six bottles are desired.”

In this question as written there is an erroneous use of the plural that is not at all questionable. “Which ...iscorrect” should have been written. Only one is contemplated, as a choice, by “which,” therefore the verb should be singular. In the sentence inquired aboutareis the proper verb, because the plural subject immediately precedes it, and the singular verb agreeing with “one” is understood, not expressed. Logical fullness of expression would demand something like “whether one bottle is or six bottles are”; but that is plainly undesirable. The rule is that in such cases the verb should agree with its immediate subject. Objection to the plural verb in the other sentence does not conflict with this rule, because, the pronoun “which,” meaning “which sentence,” is the direct subject, notwithstanding the intervention of other words between it and the verb.

I inclose two clippings from papers, which I have numbered (1) and (2). Will you kindly inform me if these two sentences are grammatically correct as printed? If not, please explain why. (1) “He made many friends, but all were in moderate circumstances, and none wanted to know any other language than their own.” (2) “This thing is so simple and so clear in my own mind that I can not see how any one can think differently; but if anybody does, I would like to hear from them.”

The first sentence can not rightly be utterly condemned, although “none” is simply “no one,” and so is primarily singular. It is not uncommon to use the word with a plural pronoun or verb, as including more than one, and it is not wrong to do so. It would undoubtedly be right, however, to say “none wanted other than his own.” The second sentence is positively and unqualifiedly bad, notwithstanding the fact that the error is a very common one. “I would like to hear from him” would be right. In cases like both of these (supposing that one prefers the singular pronoun in the first) it is preferable to use the masculine singular, despite the inclusion of women among those meant by the other words, because it agrees in number, and while it means a man and not a woman, “man” is inclusive of women, though it is essentially a masculine word.

Will you kindly inform me whether the subjoined sentence is wrong? “The events in Field’s life—his birth at St. Louis in 1850; his education at Williams, Knox, Amherst, and Missouri State Universities; his connection with the St. LouisJournal, Kansas CityTimes, DenverTribune, and ChicagoNews; and his rise in journalism—were sufficiently commented upon at the time of his unfortunate death a little over a year ago to require special mention now.” It is claimed by a literary friend that the word “not” should be inserted after “ago,” making the phrase read “not to require special mention now.”I maintain that the clause beginning with “to” is a clause of result. For substitute the word “enough” for “sufficiently”—which means the same—and see how it reads: “The events in F’s life ... were enough commented upon at the time of his ... death ... to require special mention now.”

The sentence is incomplete without “not” after “ago,” or a corresponding change, as “to require no special mention.” Its intention is that no mention is now required, and why not say so? Substitution of “enough” for “sufficiently” makes no difference, and I must confess that I do not know what “a clause of result” is, as I never heard of one before, at least with any meaning that is at all fitting for anything that can be intended here.

Many authors, especially those who dabble with statistics, use the words “native language.” On consulting the Century Dictionary, under the head “Native,” I find the following definitions: “3. Of or pertaining to one by birth, or the place or circumstance of one’s birth; as, native land, native language. 4. Of indigenous origin or growth; not exotic or of foreign origin or production.” Now, will you kindly explain the native language of a person born in Switzerland, where it is stated that in one canton the language used is Italian, in another German, and in still another French? Likewise of Alsace-Lorraine, which at one time is a part of France and at another time is an integral portion of Germany? Then, let us take Brazil. A person born in that country is called a Brazilian, yet speaks the Portuguese tongue. Colonization, also, leads to a strange condition of affairs. When this country was settled there were several languages, yet English became the predominant one. Still, if I am not mistaken, English is not of indigenous origin or growth here. While I am well aware that the words have been used by some of the best writers, I am still of the opinion that it is not strictly correct, and that some other expression might be used. As an example, I will statethat I saw recently a case where it was printed that a child was born in Canada of Italian parents and that he could read and write his native language. What is his native language?

One’s native language is that to which he is born—that is, it is the one he acquires most naturally, being, of course, his parents’ native speech, wherever he may be born. Dictionaries can not multiply definitions for every possible mutation of human affairs. The definitions quoted are absolutely right, even if various languages are spoken in one country. An Italian Swiss’s native language is Italian; in Alsace-Lorraine the native language of some of the people is German, and that of others is French; in Brazil the native language of natives is Portuguese. The second definition quoted has no connection with languages, except that of the kind shown in saying that “the native languages of America are the Indian languages”; it is not intended for the case in question. Our native language is English, not primarily through the place of our birth, but because of the circumstance that we are born to that language, born of parents who use it and from whom we instinctively acquire it. In the last case noted—the child born in Canada—the native language is Italian. No reasonable objection to the expression seems possible.

Would you say, “About one person in ten doesn’t know that their neighbors are saving money,” or do you think “his neighbors” better?

“His” is decidedly better. It is never right to use a singular noun and a plural pronoun, or any other disagreement in number. It seems advisable in a case like that of the question here to say “About one man inten,” etc., because it is a business matter, and presumably men are principally concerned. However, if generalizing by the noun “person” is preferred, that need not lead to the real grammatical error of using a plural pronoun. Of course a person may not be masculine, and that is why so many people make the error in number—to avoid supposed conflict in gender. But “man” is sufficiently generic to include all mankind, and the fact of its being masculine in gender, and demanding a masculine pronoun, need not be considered an insuperable objection to its use in the inclusive sense. All readers would know that the mere matter of general expression did not exclude women and children from business dealings. Changing “man” to “person,” though, still leaves the masculine pronoun good, for grammar demands agreement in number, and it has been custom from time immemorial to use in such cases the word that denotes the supposedly stronger sex. Thus we should say, “The animal draws his load better under certain conditions,” in a general sense by no means precluding the female animal from consideration; and why not “the person” also? We are the more willing to discuss this matter now because of a recent revival of the silliness that would have us use the ridiculous word “thon,” meaning “that one,” in such cases. Here is the latest outcropping of this nonsense: “We are prone to prefer the new words to the old, and many men and women find a pleasure in introducing a word not familiar to the average individual. Such a word is ‘thon,’ a contraction of ‘that one,’ proposed in 1858 by Charles Crozat Converse, of Erie, Pennsylvania, as a substitute for the clumsy combinations ‘heor she,’ ‘him or her,’ etc., as in the sentence, ‘The child must be taught to study thon’s lesson.’ The word is so convenient that it is a wonder that it remains new to most people. The want of it caused the United States Supreme Court once upon a time to render a decision that ‘his’ in a law should be construed ‘his or her,’ so that women might be as amenable to the law as the male lawmakers themselves. This ruling allows writers of laws to avoid the use of ‘his or her,’ etc., every time a personal pronoun has to be used. But in every-day use the ruling of the courts does not count, and we need to use ‘thon’ every day of our lives.” It was not the want of any such abominable formation as “thon” that led to the court decision, but that decision merely fixed in law what had always been a real principle in language. With correct understanding of language facts, no one ever need say “his or her,” for “his” alone is really sufficient. The abomination “thon” remains new to most people because there is absolutely no need of it.

Is it possible to construct the following sentence so as to give three distinct and separate meanings without changing the wording? The sentence is, “Twenty two dollar bills weigh as much as a silver dollar.”

Yes. Twenty-two dollar bills, twenty two-dollar bills, and twenty-two-dollar bills (though there is no bill issued for $22).

Please explain the correct manner of compounding the following adjectives: “Life-insurance company,” “fire insurance company,” “tornado insurance company.” I am under theimpression that they should be used as written above, for this simple reason, namely: In the first instance it is possible to place an insurance upon your life, and therefore the two adjectives adhere and become compound. In the latter two cases it is different—you do not place insurance upon fire or tornado, but you insureagainstthem, and you do not insure against life; therefore, in the last two instances, the two adjectives do not adhere directly and should not be used as compound adjectives. I would also like to inquire further, if either of the above is incorporated in the full name of an organization, should they in any such case be compounded?

If compounding occurs in any of the terms, it should in all, as they are exactly alike grammatically. Difference of meaning in the understood prepositions should not affect the forms. No compounding is really necessary, although the terms are compounds etymologically. If we tried to compound every term that could be reasonably joined in form no dividing line would ever be reached. Usage, especially in the names of corporations, is against compounding in these cases.

A large book is now in press (about 150 pages having been electrotyped). Throughout these pages the apostrophe and additionalswere used in names ending withs, viz., Lewis’s, Parsons’s, Adams’s, etc. Proofs are now returned with finalsdeled, which fact leads the Autocrat of the Composing-room (the Chairman) to arise and assert that “while the practice may be correct, it is behind the times,” “all good enough fifty years ago,” “won’t go ingoodoffices nowadays,” “never used in first-class work,” closing with the remark that he doesn’t see why it is not used in griffins’ [griffins’s] heads (!), Orphans’ [Orphans’s] Home (!), calmly ignoring the fact that in the first instance a common noun, plural, is used, and in the latter a proper noun, same number. The reader contends that the apostrophe and additionalsas marked are correct, and refers to the Harper publications,Scribner’s, theCentury, andthe work of anygoodprinting house. Whoisright, or which is right (all questions of “style” aside)?

That Chairman evidently does not know the difference between singular and plural, or at least does not know the grammatical distinction of the forms, that has been just what it now is for more than fifty years. “Adams’s,” etc., are the right forms, beyond any possible reasonable objection; the only difficulty is that some people will not use the right forms, and have been so thoroughly drilled in the use of wrong forms that they insist that the wrong ones are right.

Please tell me what kind of mark (if any) should be placed after 4th, 21st, and like words used in a sentence where if the word were spelled out there would be no mark; as, “On the 21st of September.” My opinion is that the form is not an abbreviation. It certainly is a contraction, but nothing seems left out.

No mark should be used. The opinion that the form is not an abbreviation is a good opinion, because there is no abbreviating. Abbreviating is done by leaving off a part of the word, and it is commonly shown by using a period at the end of the short form; but some short forms, while they really are abbreviations, are not technically known as such, because they are quite properly included in another category, that of nicknames or merely short names. In this latter class are “Ed,” “Fred,” “Will,” etc. In the ordinal words of our question there is no cutting off from the end, but only substitution of a figure for the numeral part of the word, with the same ordinal termination that is used in the word when spelled out. How can anything “certainly” be a contraction when nothing seems left out? A contractionis a form made by leaving out a part from between the ends and drawing the ends together, commonly with an apostrophe in place of the omitted part, as in “dep’t” for “department”; but some real contractions are known as abbreviations by printers, because they are printed in the form of abbreviations, as “dept.,” which is often used instead of the other form. The dates with figures certainly arenotcontractions, as there is no omission, but mere substitution of a figure for the corresponding letters. Possibly the doubt arose from the fact that the Germans do make abbreviations of ordinal words by using a figure and a period, omitting the termination, as “21. September,” which shows plainly why the point is used.

In reading the proofs of a bicycle catalogue recently the writer compounded the words handle-bar, tool-bag, seat-post, etc., on the ground that they were all technical terms in this connection and were therefore properly compounded. For this action he was criticised, his critic claiming that handle-bar is the only proper compound of the three words mentioned, inasmuch as neither the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in the other cases named the parts are complete by themselves. Will you kindly give your opinion on this matter?

The words mentioned are compounds, though they are more frequently printed in the wrongly separated form than in their proper form. Mere technicality, however, is not a good reason for compounding any words. It is the fact that “handle” and “bar” are two nouns joined to make a new noun that makes them become one word instead of two. “Handle-bar” is no more technical than “spinal column,” for instance, is anatomical (another kind of technicality), yet the first termis one word and the other is two. In the latter term the first word is an adjective, fulfilling the regular adjective office of qualifying. The other name has no qualifying element, being a mere name, representing the phrase “bar used as a handle.” How any one can imagine such a difference as that neither the bar nor the handle is complete alone, while in the other cases named the parts are complete by themselves, passes understanding. The circumstances are identical—two nouns in each case joined to make a new noun representing such phrases as “bag used to hold tools,” “post to support a seat,” etc. Even the accent as heard in the first part of each name truly indicates compounding. The principle is exactly the same as that which made the Greeks and Latins join two nouns in one, through which we have “geography,” which is no more truly one word than is its literal English translation, “earth-writing.”

One of our printers, in setting up a job, came across the words “large tobacco firm.” He felt sure a hyphen should be used after the word “tobacco,” so it would not be understood as a large-tobacco firm. To please him, I told him to put it in, but told him its absence showed that the tobacco firm was large, and not the tobacco. What do you do with such words as “honey crop”? I compound it when it means the first stomach of the bee, but not when the word “crop” means harvest.

Certainly, if any hyphening is done in the first words instanced, it must be that which is mentioned; but none is necessary, and probably few persons would ever think of it. Our correspondent seems to have given a hasty answer to the question, as in fact it is not strictly truethat the separated words show that the firm is large, and not the tobacco. It would seem more accurate to say that no one (speaking generally) would misunderstand the separated words, because the natural conclusion is that the firm does a large business. On the contrary, if the actual intention should be that the firm dealt in large tobacco, that fact would be fixed beyond question by making a compound adjective “large-tobacco.” The distinction between “honey crop” and “honey-crop” is excellent. A principle is illustrated by it that would be worth a great deal to everybody, if only it could be established and widely understood and applied. It is difficult to state it clearly, although the two kinds of meaning seem to show a very plain difference, that might easily be less apparent in a sentence containing only one of them. We can not say that “honey” is a true adjective in the separate use, but it comes much nearer to the true adjective force in one use than it does in the other. “Honey-crop” for the stomach, as “the crop (stomach) in which honey is stored,” is simply one noun made by joining two nouns. “Honey-bag” is the word given in dictionaries for this. All the grammarians who ever wrote about this subject say that in our language two nouns so used together simply to name one thing become one word (meaning merely that they cease to be two words in such use). Of course there is much disagreement, and it does not seem probable that everybody will ever write all such terms alike; but it is absolutely certain that some compound words of such make are as fully established as if their elements were not usable separately, and it seems impossible to distinguish in any reasonable way between one such name andany other. In other words, if “honey-bag” is a compound—and it is, no matter how many or what persons write it as two words—“mail-bag,” “meal-bag,” and every similar name of a bag is a compound; and if names of bags, then likewise every similar name of anything else is a compound.

The appended clipping is from a proof of a college publication, and is part of a class history. It appears as it came from the compositor’s hands. The editor of the annual in which it will appear submitted the first of my questions (indicated below) to the president of his college, and though the latter enjoys considerable local prominence as an educator and a Greek scholar, yet was he unable to enlighten us upon this point. “In oratory we have shown our powers, and look forward to the time when the Demosthenes of ’Ninety-eight will sway senates and our Ciceros the political world.” What is the plural form of “Demosthenes”? The plural is clearly the form the author had in mind while writing it, but I am ignorant of either rule or authority governing such cases. Would you prefer reconstructing the sentence? To cover our ignorance somewhat, I suggested the following: “In oratory we have shown our powers, and now look forward to the time when ’Ninety-eight’s disciples of Demosthenes will sway senates, and its Ciceros the political world.” In the word “Reinoehl” (a proper noun), should the diphthong be used? I stated that it should not be used, and was contradicted by the editor of this same publication, who said that the president of the college maintained that the diphthong was correct. Though I could quote no authority, yet I believe I am right. The word is a German one, as you will have noticed. The words Schaeffer, Saeger, and Steinhaeuser appear without the diphthong on the same page with the word Reinoehl, yet they passed unchallenged by the editor. Would they not come under the same head as the one mentioned first?

The quotation does not seem to show positively thata plural was intended. As there was only one Demosthenes sufficiently famous for the comparison, so the writer might mean only the one best oratorical student. It is not an unnatural inference, though, that the plural was intended. The plural form of “Demosthenes” is “Demostheneses.” Why hesitate over that any more than over “Ciceros”? A regular English plural is as good for one as for the other. Greek common nouns with the terminationesform the plural by substitutingæfor that ending, as “hoplites, hoplitæ; hermes, hermæ.” Our second example is originally a proper name, but was and is used as a common noun, meaning a bust that may or may not represent the god Hermes; but this is not a good argument in favor of a Greek plural of “Demosthenes.” The change suggested is not good, because “disciples” is not meant, the intention being merely to note a similarity, and not a studied imitation: In the German name separate letters should be used, as they represent umlaut interchangeably with a double-dotted vowel without thee; thus, either “Reinoehl” or “Reinöhl” is right, but “Reinœhl” is wrong. The college president must have had the umlaut character (ö) in mind, not the ligature (æ), in answering the question. All the names mentioned are amenable to the same decision; what is right in one is right in all.

An advertisement writer brought to the office, a few days since, copy for an advertisement for a certain complexion soap in which the word which is underlined occurred: “Combined with theemollienceof cucumber juice.” The proof-reader queried the word to the author, informing him that it could not be found in the dictionary (International, 1891); his responsewas that the word expressed the idea intended to be conveyed better than any other that he knew of, and therefore he should use it, regardless of the dictionary. I have since examined the Century Dictionary and fail to find the word. The question arising in my mind is, Should the proof-reader endeavor, when the author is present, as he was in this case, to induce him to use a word for which authority can be produced, or should the author be allowed, without a word of protest, to coin words at his own sweet will? It seems to me that the proof-reader should not be required to blindly follow an author in a case of this kind after he has satisfied himself that there is no warrant, except the whim of the author, for the use of such words.Not long since, in reading a catalogue of road machinery I noticed “barrow-pit.” Being somewhat in doubt whether it should be compounded, as already written, or two words, I consulted the International, and also the Century Dictionary, but failed to find the word in either, finally concluding to use the hyphen. Which is correct—barrow-pit, or barrow pit, or barrowpit? My preference is for the use of the hyphen.

Not long since, in reading a catalogue of road machinery I noticed “barrow-pit.” Being somewhat in doubt whether it should be compounded, as already written, or two words, I consulted the International, and also the Century Dictionary, but failed to find the word in either, finally concluding to use the hyphen. Which is correct—barrow-pit, or barrow pit, or barrowpit? My preference is for the use of the hyphen.

The writer was perfectly justifiable. If no word not in a dictionary could be used, the language could not grow, and there would be many ideas left inexpressible, for want of words. Johnson’s dictionary contained many more words than any preceding work, and each new dictionary since issued has increased the record. This could not have been done if people had not used new words. Although “emollience” is not in any dictionary, there is sufficient authorization in the fact that -ence is used in forming nouns from adjectives in -ent, something that any one may do at any time, just as one may add -less to any noun, as “cigarless,” having no cigar. Emollience is the only possible single word for “character of being emollient (softening).” This is not properly a case of “whim.” The only proper restriction against such neologism is that it should not be indulgedunnecessarily, as when there is already existent a good word for the sense to be expressed.

“Barrow-pit” is the only form that principle and commonest usage will justify for this word—but the same principle gives also “advertisement-writer,” “complexion-soap,” “cucumber-juice,” and “road-machinery,” each of which you write as two words. Your decision to use the hyphen in “barrow-pit” is in accordance with all text-book teaching on the subject, and unless such teaching is applicable in all strictly similar cases it isall bad. It can hardly be necessary to reach any such pessimistic conclusion as that expressed in a letter from a country superintendent of schools—“I do not know anything about it, and I do not believe any one else does.” Our grammarians are not all idiots. What possible principle could justify such a difference as “advertisement writer” and “proof-reader” (for “one who writes advertisements” and “one who reads proof”)? If one of them is one word, the other also is one, the only difference being that some such familiar short words are written without a hyphen.

You in a recent edition, speaking of Roman type, used lower-caser. We write to ask what, if any, warrant you have among grammarians or lexicographers for the lower-case initial letter in an adjective of this class. Would it by the same authority be proper to use a lower-case in the word “Parisian,” “Chicago” used as an adjective, etc.?

No rule as to capitalizing has wider acceptance or better basis in principle than that an adjective derived from a proper noun should be capitalized, and “Roman” is such an adjective. However, in the connection thisword has in the matter with which we are dealing, the lower-case letter is not wrong, though “parisian,” “chicago” in any use, or any other such use of a lower-case initial letter would be wrong. Reasons will be given after some authorities are cited. The “Century Dictionary” says: “Roman,a.... [l. c.orcap.] Noting a form of letter or type of which the text of this book is an example”; also, “Roman,n.... [l. c.] A roman letter or type, in distinction from anitalic.” The “Standard,” under the noun, “[R- or r-] A style of ceriphed type. ... also, a black gothic letter, etc.” The “Imperial,” the standard Scotch dictionary, says of the adjective, “applied to the common, upright letter in printing, as distinguished fromitalic,” and of the noun, “A roman letter or type.” Benjamin Drew, in “Pens and Types,” page 199, in speaking of specimens of old-style type given in his book, says: “The next is a Fac-simile of four roman and three italic Lines.” He says on page 57, in introducing two lists of foreign words: “The roman list is destined to be continually lengthening, while the italic, save as it receives new accretions from foreign sources, must be correspondingly diminishing.” Webster and Worcester missed the point of distinction in usage that was discerned by the other lexicographers, and they capitalize “Roman” and “Italic.” The questioner does not say anything about “italics,” used in the same paragraph with “roman,” yet evidently the two words should be treated alike. In fact, neither word in this use has its literal sense, nor conveys a thought of Italy or Rome. When this literal sense is expressed the words should be capitalized, just as “Parisian” and“Chicago” should be. Webster actually says that “Roman” means “upright, erect,” which is plainly not a meaning showing connection with a proper noun, and, in fact, is not a true definition for the word with which it is given. The word has no real sense other than its literal one, but the literal allusion is so far removed from conscious apprehension in the printing use that it is proper and prevalent usage to write it as a common noun or adjective, just as such form has become prevalent in many other cases, as—

boycottbowie-knifebadmintongothicherculeanproteanchinaindia-rubberampere

Have our correspondents ever noticed these words in books? The writer of this answer has no hesitation in asserting that “italics” and “italicize,” which have far more literary use than “roman,” will be found with a lower-case initial much more frequently than otherwise; and the same is true of “roman” in printers’ use, which must be looked for mainly in printers’ books. What is here said, however, should not be applied too strictly; the word in question should be capitalized in special work such as that of our correspondents, where probably all similar words have capitals, as Gothic, Doric, Ionic, etc.

Kindly permit me to make a few comments. As to “honour, fervour, ardour,” etc., you say that “undoubtedly the American way (i. e., honor, etc.) is better than the other, historically as well as economically.” I suppose that “economically” means the saving of one letter; that I do not consider as worthy of note at all. As to the historical point, the words inLatin are all “honor, ardor, fervor, labor, color,” etc.; but then in French, through which they came into English, they are “honneur, couleur,” etc., so that it seems to me that theuis historically defensible.“Sceptical” or “skeptical”—a matter of indifference; the hardcrepresents the Greek kappa in any case. I suppose you spell “speculator,” yet the Greek is σπεκουλάτωρ; so “sceptre” is the Greek σκήπτρον. So we might write “spektakle” if we cared to do so; indeed, many Greek scholars do usekwhere ordinary people would usec, as “Asklepiad, Korkyra,” etc.“Ascendant, ascendancy”—the usual plan is to take the letter found in the supine of the Latin verb; thus, “dependent,” from Latin “dependens,” “intermittent,” from Latin “intermittens,” “dominant,” from Latin “dominans,” and so on. On this plan “ascendent” and “ascendency” would be right, as “scando” and “ascendo” make “scandens” and “ascendens.”You say, “Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as final authority in every instance.” Not by everybody, by any manner of means. There are many better scholars than the dictionary-makers. Would you expect Mr. Gladstone, John Ruskin, Andrew Lang, Archbishop Temple, Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, Dean Farrar, and many others to accept the dictum of a dictionary man in every instance? Why, I do not do it myself. Indeed, though I possess Greek, Latin, and French dictionaries, I have never possessed an English one, and do not much regard them or the people who think them infallible. Educated people in England have no such opinion about dictionaries; in fact, they considerthemselvesthe source of authority in matters of usage and pronunciation. Oxford and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are the sole arbiters in such matters; there is no appeal against them. Richard Grant White thoroughly grasped this and expressed it very well. Just as all classical scholars try to write Attic Greek,i. e., the Greek of the inhabitants of one Greek city, and entirely disregard the millions of other Greeks (even though so eminent as Homer and Herodotus), so all English-speaking people should model their language on that of the educated classes of Great Britain.

“Sceptical” or “skeptical”—a matter of indifference; the hardcrepresents the Greek kappa in any case. I suppose you spell “speculator,” yet the Greek is σπεκουλάτωρ; so “sceptre” is the Greek σκήπτρον. So we might write “spektakle” if we cared to do so; indeed, many Greek scholars do usekwhere ordinary people would usec, as “Asklepiad, Korkyra,” etc.

“Ascendant, ascendancy”—the usual plan is to take the letter found in the supine of the Latin verb; thus, “dependent,” from Latin “dependens,” “intermittent,” from Latin “intermittens,” “dominant,” from Latin “dominans,” and so on. On this plan “ascendent” and “ascendency” would be right, as “scando” and “ascendo” make “scandens” and “ascendens.”

You say, “Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as final authority in every instance.” Not by everybody, by any manner of means. There are many better scholars than the dictionary-makers. Would you expect Mr. Gladstone, John Ruskin, Andrew Lang, Archbishop Temple, Bishops Lightfoot and Westcott, Dean Farrar, and many others to accept the dictum of a dictionary man in every instance? Why, I do not do it myself. Indeed, though I possess Greek, Latin, and French dictionaries, I have never possessed an English one, and do not much regard them or the people who think them infallible. Educated people in England have no such opinion about dictionaries; in fact, they considerthemselvesthe source of authority in matters of usage and pronunciation. Oxford and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are the sole arbiters in such matters; there is no appeal against them. Richard Grant White thoroughly grasped this and expressed it very well. Just as all classical scholars try to write Attic Greek,i. e., the Greek of the inhabitants of one Greek city, and entirely disregard the millions of other Greeks (even though so eminent as Homer and Herodotus), so all English-speaking people should model their language on that of the educated classes of Great Britain.

“Economically,” as used in the article criticised above, meant the saving of one letter, and as many scholars, both English and American, are noting such economy, and making it very important, it may be concluded that it is worthy of note. Certainly the spellings “honour,” etc., are defensible historically—but no assertion has been made that they were not; the saying was merely that the other way is better historically. The words came into English through French, but the Latin spelling is preferable for more reasons than one. If we are to preserve theubecause it is in the French words, is not the reasoning equally applicable to the whole syllable in which the letter is used? Would it not be equally reasonable to preserve the otheruin the first syllable of “couleur”? The French themselves once spelled these words—or most of them—or. They changed them probably to represent better the natural French sound of such syllables. Because Englishmen first learned such words from Frenchmen does not seem a valid reason why the former may not revert to the historical original, which is more in keeping with English analogy, and better represents the English sound.

As to “sceptical” and “skeptical,” one who knows the need of a vast majority of English-speaking people of an authoritative choice between the two forms can never admit that the spelling is “a matter of indifference,” even if it could be reasonably admitted on any ground. Our correspondent is unfortunate in his selection of an example here, for σπεκουλάτωρ seems to be not a true Greek word, but only a transliteration of Latin “speculator,” the true etymon of the English word,which does not come from Greek. We might have written “spektakle” if we had cared to do so, as it is spelled withks in some Teutonic languages; but in the close connection here there is a strong suggestion that this word might also be Greek, which it is not. The reason for preferring “skeptical” is that there is not another English word in whichcin the combinationsceis hard, and so “sceptical” is a very bad spelling, even if it is prevalent in Great Britain.

On the plan mentioned in the letter “ascendent” and “ascendency” are right; but the other spellings are copied from the French, so potent with our correspondent in the other case, and are prevalent in present usage. “Ascendant” and “ascendancy” are preferable for this reason, and because the use of these spellings removes one of the puzzling differences which most people can not understand or explain. The plan mentioned would also give “descendent,” which has no currency as a noun, though it has been used as an adjective, and “descendant” and “ascendant” are so much alike in their nature that it is better not to make them different in form.

“Each of the large dictionaries is worthy of acceptance as final authority in every instance” was intended only as an assurance that those who desired such an authority—and there are many such—might reasonably accept the one chosen, without trying to make exceptions. There could be no intention of dictating that scholars should “accept the dictum of a dictionary man” in every instance, for that would be “putting the cart before the horse” with a vengeance. One need feel no hesitation in saying, however, that the English-speakingeducated man does not live, and never will live, who can afford to ignore utterly dictionaries of English. No dictionary is made as our correspondent seems to assume that all are made, though probably every one of them has provided employment for some men not so thoroughly educated as men can be. Educated people, in America as well as in England, make the scholarly part of the language, though it contains much that is made by the common people and that finds just as thorough establishment as that made by the scholars. Dictionary-makers never pose as language-makers. They are recorders of what is already made, which is so great in quantity that no scholar can hope to master the fiftieth part of it so thoroughly as to need no record of it. Even supposing that Oxford and Cambridge men and members of the educated classes in England are the sole arbiters in such matters—it is not supposable, though—how is the rest of the world to know their decisions if they are not recorded? Any record of them will constitute a dictionary, for that is exactly what a dictionary is—namely, a record of the accepted details of diction. As a matter of fact, also, our actual dictionary-makers, those who are vested with authoritative decision, are selected from among the very men for whom independence of dictionary men’s dicta is claimed. Noah Webster, Dr. Worcester, Professor Goodrich, Professor Whitney, Dr. March, President Porter, Dr. C. P. G. Scott, and Dr. J. A. H. Murray—not to mention the many other English scholars who have been dictionary-makers—rank with the men named in the letter, if some of these do not outrank some of those in scholarship, and they are the ones whochoose where there is a choice in making the record. Dictionaries contain errors, and scholars are independently above acceptance of the errors; but we may repeat the saying that when once a large dictionary is chosen as authority it is better, as to matters of spelling, to accept it in full.

Back to Index Next