THE bKE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



137 



strong proof that I knew the definition 

 of the word. If I had wanted the defini- 

 tion of the word, I think I shonld have 

 asked, and I thonght he wonld have ex- 

 pected nie to ask "What is the defini- 

 tion of the word "sic?" When one 

 wants the definition of a word, he asks 

 " What is the delTmition of that word?" 

 or " What does that word mean ?" and 

 not "What do you mean by saying so 

 and so ? " 



vSo when I said, "Coming as it does 

 twice after the word "boil, " it looks as 

 if he might be objecting to the use of 

 that word, but as I know of nothing incor- 

 rect in the word, or the way in which it 

 is used, 1 shall be obliged to him if he 

 will tell what he means by saying "sic, " 

 it did not seem possible to me, with the 

 view I had of Mr. Taylor's intelligence, 

 to believe that he thought I was asking 

 for the definition of" sic." But as he 

 insists that such was the case, I accept 

 his word, and hereby apologize for under- 

 rating his honesty and overrating his in- 

 telligence. 



HOW M.\XY DICTIONWRIES MUST ONK 



POSSESS BKl-ORE WRITING FOR 



JOIRN.VI.S. 



I protest most emphalically against the 

 position taken by Mr. 'J'aylor on page S5, 

 and still more emi)hatically do I protest 

 against the position of the editor and 

 jniblisherof theesteemeil Review. Brief- 

 ly state<l, that ruling is that any one who 

 attempts to write for any bee journal 

 nujst possess a majority of dictionaries 

 under penalty of being gibbetted in the 

 Review for the use of a word not sanc- 

 ti(jned by .said majority. It seems to me 

 that all that should be retiuired of a wri- 

 ter is to have one rei)ntal)le dictionary, 

 and if he finds a word given in that dic- 

 tionary he ought to be allowed to u.se it 

 as there given. Don't you think, Mr. 

 Ivlitor, yon can concede that much to 

 some of us who haven't a number of dic- 

 tionaries but have had a number of poor 

 crops ? 



IS "bring TO .V BOII/' .\N .\U.O\V.VHI,IC 

 EXPRESSION? 



Mr. Taylor says I used the expression 

 " bring to a boil " instead of "to boil, " 

 "to cause to boil, " "to let boil," etc. 

 That is hardly correct. I used the word 

 "boil " as a noun with the definition giv- 

 en in the standard dictionary: " The act 

 of boiling; the state of boiling or being at 

 the boiling-point." If a cook says she 

 boiled some milk, it is understood that 

 the milk continued at the boiling-point 

 for some time. If she says she brought 

 the milk to a boil, it is understood that it 

 did not continue at the boiling-point un- 

 less she specifically says she brought it 

 to a boil and kept it at the boil. It is on- 

 ly fair to say that I used the word with- 

 out knowing whether it was in any dic- 

 tionary or not, just as I use many another 

 word in common use. If a word is in com- 

 mon use among good writers and speak- 

 ers, one is justified in using it, and if it 

 is not found in his dictionary, so much 

 the worse for the dictionary. The noun 

 " boil " is in frequent use in reputable 

 books, magazines and newspapers. I 

 may mention " Common Sense in the 

 Household, " an authority in matters cu- 

 linary, and written by a lady of good lit- 

 erary reputation without reference to that 

 book; and The Chicago Daily Record, 

 one of the best daily newspapers in the 

 world. 



Mr. Taylor l)roa(lly hints that the noun 

 " boil " as I used it is " practically con- 

 demned by a decided majority " of the 

 dictionaries, and that "there is no vacancy- 

 for the word to fill. " I don't believe a 

 single dictionary condemns it. They 

 may not contain it, but if that is consid- 

 ered condemnation, there are hundreds 

 of other words condemned in like man- 

 ner that are in constant use by the best 

 speakers and writers. I shall not cease 

 to use the word "telephone " because it 

 is condemned after that style by a Web- 

 ster's unabridged dictionary that lies be- 

 fore me. It is not necessary that there 

 shall be a " vacancy for the word to fill. " 

 It is only necessary that it shall have 



