K 2 CouEs on Ornithofhilologicalities. [January 



we have said, we regard his review as a perfectly fair, upright and down- 

 right piece of pedantic hjpercriticism, to which we have no right nor de- 

 sire to object, if it suits his fancy to indulge in that amusement. We do 

 not even take the liberty of admonishing him that his "positive passion" 

 for expressing himself on the subject of philology is open to the suspicion 

 of being merely a ventilation of very little learning, on very small 

 provocation, on a very -untimely occasion. For example, the Professor 

 says of our work : 



"The plan is excellent and the great majority of the derivations are cor- 

 rect J but the^treatment of some of the most essential points which should 

 form the initial training of the word-constructor and word-expounder is 

 erroneous and misleading; to show this with as much clearness and detail 

 as a limited space will permit is the purpose of this article." But where, 

 in the dozen pages which follow, does Professor Merriam show that the 

 plan is excellent and that the great majority of the derivations are correct.? 

 There is not another word about the excellence of the plan or the correct- 

 ness of the great majority of the derivations. On the contrary, our 

 erroneous and misleading treatment of the essential points which 

 should form the initial training of the word-constructor and word-expoun- 

 der receives our critic's undivided attention — attention lavished upon 

 authors so long past their "initial training" in the use of language that they 

 remember little of, and care less for, any possible verbal quibbles or gram- 

 matical quirks — attention that had much better have been bestowed upon 

 such "small minority" of their derivations as may be found incorrect. 

 For when the professional word-expounders have set their own house in 

 order, and have agreed upon what's what, will be time enough for the rest 

 of us to mind what they say. 



To illustrate our meaning, and possibly make it clear to our pains-taking 

 and unnecessary critic : His opening charge upon aurum and xpiJO'os be- 

 ing passed over as mere verbality, which will not hold water for a moment 

 as seriotTS criticism^ — as just about what one should bounce one's little son 

 with if he got out on his musa, miiscB — we find the Professor formulating 

 our views on the orthography of a certain class of Latin words in this way : 



"The terminal vowel of the first component before a consonant should 

 be i unless the second component is a participial form ; then it should be 

 o, because it is the ablative, and we are to say albocatcdatus," etc. ; where- 

 upon follows a neat little disquisition upon connective vowels, to show 

 how foreign to the real genius of the Latin tongue the o is; backed up by 

 considerations of the quantity of the termination of the ablative case ac- 

 cording to Kuhner and the "best German authorities." This sounds for- 

 midable ; but — bless our philological soul! — -we thought everybody knew 

 that before it was thus put in such a masterly manner by our critic, and 

 never thought of evolving any principle in the matter. What we did say 

 was, that atri-, albi-^ mag7ii- (with the /), is undoubtedly a correct form of 

 such compounds, and that we simply put atro- in the ablative of instru- 

 ment conformably with usage in Picus albolarvatus, Tyratinus aurantio- 

 atro-cristatus; and we find the Professor, with the help of his 'Harpers' 



