1P89.] 



313 



false pviaciple, and did not attempt to carry it out consistently. So much 

 the belter, or our spelliug would have been even worse than it is now, 

 ■which is saying a great deal. 



" I believe that the stupidity of the pedantic method which I have just 

 described is very little understood ; and that, on the contrary, most Eng- 

 lishmen, owing to an excessive study of the classics as compared with 

 English (tlie history of which is neglected to an almost incredible and 

 wholly shameless extent), actually sympathize with tbe pedants. But 

 the error of their attempt will be apparent to any who will take the pains 

 to think the matter over with a little care. Their object was, irrespec- 

 tively of the sound, to render the etymology obvious, not to the ear, but 

 to the eye ; and hence the modern system of judging of the spelling of 

 words by the eye only. There is now only one rule, a rule which is often 

 carefully but foolishly concealed from learners, viz., to go entirely by 

 the loukoi?i word, and to spell it as we have seen it spelt in books. If 

 we do this we hug ourselves in the belief that we are spelling ' correctly,' 

 a belief which even good scholars entertain. 



"Certainly the pedants put several words right, a? they thought ; but 

 their knowledge was slight. They let the pure English and Scandinavian 

 words alone ; and, as we have seen, they mended (as they thought) the 

 spellings of French words, not by comparison with Old French, which 

 might have been justified, but by comparison with Latin and Greek only ; 

 and they were frequently misled by the fancy that Latin was derived in its 

 entirety from the Greek. Thus they fancied that the Latin silva was de- 

 rived from the Greek (J^-''}, and accordingly altered its spelling to sylva. 

 Hence, even in English, we liave to commend and immortalize this blun- 

 der by writing sylvan. They seem to have had a notion that the Latin 

 slilvs was derived, of all things, from the Greek (ttuXo^ (a pillar), which 

 would be extremely inconvenient, we must su|>pose, as a writing imple- 

 ment ; the fact being that stilus and (rruXtn; have no etymological connec- 

 tion. This blunder we commemorate by writing style. 



" "We write science because of its connection with the Latin scientia ; 

 and for this reason some writers of the seventeenth century, struck with 

 the beauty to the eye of the silent c after s, admiringly copied in sucli 

 words as scite, scituation and scent. The etymology of the two former 

 was, however, so. obvious that the habit fell into disuse ; but the etymol- 

 ogy oi scent was less obvious, and so we write scent still ! What, again, 

 can be more absurd than the final ue in the word tongue, as if it must 

 needs be conformed to the French langue ? But when once introduced, it 

 of course remained, because none but scholars of Anglo-Saxon could know 

 its etymoloiry. It is impossible to enumerate all the numerous anomalies 

 which the disastrous attempt to make etymology visible has introduced. 

 Yet this is the valueless system which is so much lauded by those who 

 have made no adequate study of the true history of our language." 



A long list might be added. For instance, the old Hand had an s in- 

 serted because of its supposed derivation from insula. Old English rime 



PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XXVI. 129. 2N. PUINTED APRIL 26, 1889. 



