THE BEK-KEKPERS' REVIEW. 



«5 



his language. I took its meaning, I sup- 

 pose, in the usual way by the impression 

 it made. But, looking at it now, delib- 

 erately, I cannot well see how it could be 

 understood in anj' other way than that in 

 which I understood it. If the language 

 had been used by a person known to be 

 wanting in erudition, or in skill in the 

 u.se of language, there might perhaps 

 have been room for doubt as to just what 

 was meant. But it is well understood 

 that the doctor knows how to express 

 himself clearly. Let us examine the 

 language. The first .sentence calls prett}- 

 plainly for the meaning of sic; and if it 

 possesses any infirmity in that respect it 

 is fully cured by what follows. The lan- 

 guage runs: It looks as if he might be ob- 

 jecting to the use of that -cord (boil). Is 

 that the language to be expected from 

 one wh(j knows the meaning of sic, and 

 who wants to inquire what fault is refer- 

 red to by its use? vSurely not. On me, 

 at lea.st, it leaves a strong impression that 

 the writer is wondering what the meaning 

 of the word .sic is. The natural, sponta- 

 neous expression of one who knew its 

 meaning would be something like this: 

 YoH object to my use of the ic'ord boil, zvhat 

 objection do you have to it / The whole 

 paragraph looks to me as if the writer 

 were in a quandary as to the meaning of 

 the word sic. It would seem that it 

 should be embarrassing to him to suggest 

 that he wrote that whole paragraph in an 

 attempt to express what he might have 

 expres.sed clearly in the one word: To 

 what do you object? It can hardly be 

 held that it comes with good grace from 

 one who uses language loo.sely to com- 

 plain if it fails to convey the meaning lie 

 intended but failed to express. Bearing 

 upon the point as to whether I was guilty 

 of evasion, or whether, on the other hand, I 

 took his language in its natural meaning, 

 I wish to remind the doctor that at least 

 two other writers, who certainly could 

 have no motive to take it otherwise than 

 naturally, undertook to give him defini- 

 tions of the word. He doubtless remem- 

 bers them. The reference to one of the 



writers is the .\merican Bee Journal, page 

 710 for 1S98. The other writer discusses the 

 matter to the extent of half a cohnnn, as 

 I remember it, but at this writing I have 

 not succeeded in finding the book and 

 page. Like those writers, if I were capa- 

 ble of evasion, I had no motive for it; as I 

 think may be .seen from what follows. 



The doctor used the expression "bring 

 to a boil" instead of "to boil," "to cause 

 to boil," "to let boil," etc. He used the 

 word as a noun instead of as a verb. I 

 know of onl}' one dictionary that recog- 

 nizes it in that sense, as a good word; 

 and the doctor makes no claim for any 

 but that one. Now I trust it may be suf- 

 ficient for me to say further, briefly, on 

 this point, that my position was and is 

 that when a word is recognized as good 

 English by only one out of many diction- 

 aries, or even by a decided minority of 

 the dictionaries, or, what is the same 

 thing, when it is practically condemned 

 by a decided majority, and when at the 

 same time there is no vacancv for the 

 word to fill, that I should not hesitate to 

 question, on proper occasions, of course, 

 the propriety and good taste of its use. 

 When an expression that can di.splease no 

 one is at hand, why use one that maj' 

 displease some ? Indeed, I think it 

 would be no sin to hold the same opinion 

 if the expression were condemned b}' onlv 

 a small minority of the dictionaries. 



After all, by far the most notable thing 

 about the doctor's article is the unusual 

 character of the language he emplovs. I 

 refer to his open charges of ignorance, 

 and his covert one of dishonesty. I fail 

 to see how they in any way add either 

 to the strength of his argument or to the 

 clearness of his language, and they can 

 hardly be considered other than a gross 

 violation of the principles of good taste, 

 not to say of christian behavior. I had 

 occasion last month to speak of per- 

 sonal and abusive language. If the case 

 then referred to had been nearly as in- 

 decorous as the present one, I should have 

 felt it my duty to speak of the matter 

 more at length; but I had at that time no 



