

on Rules for Nomenclature. 283 



the rather free use of superlatives in which Mr. 0. has in- 

 dulged." Had Mr. Strickland in this passage underlined 

 clearly instead of the words which he has put in italics, and 

 which is an alteration of his own, not found in the original, 

 he would have more justly conveyed my meaning : but let us 

 see how far I am to blame, even upon his own showing. — 

 Turning to Rule 13, which Mr. Strickland says provides for 

 the euphony which I failed to discover in any of the codes, I 

 find it says, " Names shoidd not be too long, even though 

 classically compounded. 1 ' Now unless Mr. Strickland had 

 told me so, I confess I should never have discovered how this 

 rule provided for "euphony." To my mind euphony is a very 

 different quality from redundancy ; nor can I imagine what it 

 has to do with the mere length or shortness of words. The 

 Greek and German languages, remarkable for the length of 

 their polysyllabic compounds, are equally celebrated for the 

 harmony and liquid softness of their enunciation ; the term 

 "poluphlosboiophanous," which I took the liberty of intro- 

 ducing to the English reader in my former " Observations," 

 has been admired for its euphony ever since Homer wrote the 

 Iliad, yet I know few longer, except 



A word that ought only to be said on holidays, when one has 

 nothing else to do," — so that far from meriting the reproach of 

 " indulging too freely in the use of superlatives," I have really 

 been more lenient towards the "Rules," in this matter of eu- 

 phony, than they deserved ; since in reality it appears evident 

 that this essential quality is not only no where clearly pro- 

 vided for, but that it is no where provided for at all. As to 

 "propriety of application," the term is never mentioned in 

 any of the codes I am acquainted with, and granting that the 

 rules enumerated by Mr. Strickland do, in some sort, aim at 

 securing it, T must confess that I still consider the phrase "no 

 where clearly developed," as strictly and justly applicable to 

 the case. But I care little for the phrase itself, and should 

 not have thought it worth defending, had not Mr. Strickland 

 charged it with being overstrained. 



I have hitherto confined my observations principally to in- 

 dividual "rules," but I confess that one of my greatest objec- 

 tions arises from the interminable length of the "codes" them- 

 selves, and the great multiplicity of laws which they embrace, 

 frequently arbitrary and unfounded, and sometimes opposed 

 to one another; so that it is next to impossible to comply with 

 them all, or avoid being tripped up by some expert legislator 

 when you least expect it. The code collected by Mr. Strick- 

 land himself contains twenty-two rules ; that of Illiger, nine- 



