EDITORIAL 20 3 



we compute the loss to the acquisition of the essential elements 

 of science which must ensue if this system is perpetuated through 

 the five to ten million years which the solar prophets assign as 

 the possible future of the habitable earth the magnitude of the 

 affliction grows to prodigious dimensions. It may be confidently 

 predicted, however, that there will be a revolt in the not distant 

 future if a rational movement toward reform is not soon inaugu- 

 rated. In the meantime every little reform has an importance, 

 not only in its own merit, but also in its moral effects as a step 

 towards general reform. 



Back of the special criticism of Professor Pirsson there is a 

 general question which invites attention in connection with his 

 protest : What considerations shall guide us in the endeavor to 

 secure better practice? The word as, dsar, was anglicized to 

 osar, osars, a half century ago, and may be found current in the 

 writings of Murchison, Desor, the elder Hitchcock, and others. 

 Practice has been divided ever since between the alternative evils 

 of introducing into the English language a word of irregular 

 variation and uncertain pronunciation (to English people) with 

 its consequent infelicities, or of ruthlessly modifying the Swedish 

 word to suit English practice, with the barbarisms which Profes- 

 sor Pirsson points out. There is, however, a terthim quid, to which 

 Americans are quite generally turning. It is the avoidance of 

 both these alternatives and the adoption of the term esker instead, 

 which in form and phonic nature is more acceptable. Whatever 

 may be the method of formation of the plural of the ultimately 

 perfected world language, it is quite certain that it will not follow 

 the Swedish analogy as, dsar, because this is not inherently meri- 

 torious. Hence we do the English language a poor service and 

 put obstacles in the way of the ultimate common language by 

 introducing a form not in itself worthy to endure. It may be 

 urged as an objection to the term esker that as had currency at 

 an earlier date. If we are to give the law of priority its widest 

 application, and bow unhesitatingly before it, the objection holds 

 good. The writer has himself previously yielded to it. But on 

 fuller consideration he withdraws from this position and favors 



