Anfwer to 8. M. on Orthography. 
the landlord’s pleafure—diyided into 
feparate farms, tracts of ground which 
had been, before, poflefied as commons.”’ 
—This is the obvious import of the 
principal claufe of the infcription. Thus 
underftood, what the in{cription relates, 
is perfeftly confiftent with the truth of 
hiftory. According to Mr. Coxer’s 
tranflation and commentary, it has no 
meaning that is not falfe. 
It is enough for me to have thus cor- 
rected the principal error in our initruc- 
tive traveller’s account of that particular 
in the Danifh hiftory. Every reader will 
perceive, that there is yet more to be 
corrected in the tranflated in{cription. 
I am, fir, yours, &c. 
Elgin, March15, 1798. ARCTICUS. 


To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
‘SIR, 
LTHOUGH you feldom permit 
your inftructive and agreeable pages 
to be the vehicles of -controverfy, yet, I 
have perfuaded myfelf, that you will not 
refufe a place to the following remarks, 
in fupport of my former letter on the fub- 
ject of fpelling. The importance of-or- 
thography to the caufe of literature in 
general, is a fufficient excufe for the pre- 
{ent difcuffion. Perhaps I may not throw 
much new light on the fubjeét, but I thall 
be fully fatisfied, if I am the means of 
drawing forth the thoughts of thofe who 
have confidered it with more attention ‘and 
ingenuity. Iconfefs I {till perfevere in 
' my former opinion, ‘ that an alteration 
in our mode of fpelling would be preju- 
dicial to the Englith language.’” S. M. 
(vol. 4. p..89.) afferts, that ‘ etymo- 
legy, though an amufing, is by no means 
a neceflary ftudy ;”* and that it is full as 
» likely to miflead, as to affift, inv the dif- 
covery of the meaning of words.”” Now 
I cannot allow either of thefe pofitions to 
be true. To fay that etymology is not a 
neceflary ttudy, is tantamount to denying 
the neceffity of ftudying grammar. For 
etymology is of as much value and ufe as 
any other part of grammatical knowledge. 
Indeed the clearnefs of their derivations 
is the chief beauty in the language of the 
Greeks. Without the clue of etymology, 
language would refemble a vaft labyrinth, 
in which we fhould be perpetually con- 
fufed and bewildered. But S. M. afferts 
that “* itis full as likely to miflead as to 
aflift, in the difcovery of words.”’ Since 
all words are liable, from time and ca- 
price, to be changed in their fignifica- 
tion, it muft happen, that etymology will 
not always be an infallible guide. This 
425 
would be too much to expeét. Nothing 
human has ever yet been perfect. But 
that it is full as likely to miflead as to 
affift, I can by no means allow. Al- 
though, in fome words, the meaning is 
not itriftly that which might have been 
expected from the fignification of the root, 
yet there are very few, that do not bear 
fome analogy to the original theme*. But 
fays S. M. “* The new mode of fpelling 
will not deftroy etymology.” And to 
prove this, he affirms, that although in 
many languages, the fpelling has ‘been 
confiderably altered, in none has the ety- 
mology been deftroyed. Now, it does not 
appear, that the alteration which he men- 
tions to have taken place in other lan- 
guages, was with a view of making the 
orthography agree with the pronuncia- 
tion. But it was the refult of fafhion and 
caprice; and therefore it is probable, 
that many have been altered fo as to be- 
come more like the words from which 
they are derived. The effects, therefore, 
of fuch a change, which is partial in its 
extent, and uncertain in its influence, do, 
by no means, refemble the confequences 
of the fyftematic correction, which is now 
propofed. Becaufe a few words, in a 
long courfe of time, and from various 
caufes, have been altered in their {pelling, 
and no deftruétion of etymology has en- 
fued, does it thence follow, that a whole 
language can have its orthography ac- 
commodated to the prevailing mode of 
pronunciation, with no more confequences 
than in the former inftance? Certainly 
not. The two cafes are widely different. 
In the latter, the operation would be 
much more extenfive and violent, and, I 
am afraid, fatal to etymolegy: which is 
not a bugbear (as reprefented by $. M.), 
but a juft and powerful objection. Your 
corre{pondent thinks, that if by a new 
fyftem of orthography, we fhould be de- 
prived of the means of tracing the deriva- 

* Your correfpondent has been unlucky in 
his choice of inftances; for of thofe which 
he produces, only the two laft are in point. 
The meaning of the firft does not widely difs 
fer from that of its root; for, ought not a 
phyfician to be a natural philofopher ? In 
the fecond example, although patient in 
French, does not mean precifely the fame as 
patient in Englith, yet they both preferve 
fo much of the theme, as todenote a fufferer. 
Journey is related to journée, fince it origi- 
nally fignified, *¢ as much as could be tra~ 
velled in one day.” Plate, from plat, a difh, 
varies only fo far in its fignification, that by 
‘© difh,” we mean the fame kind of utenfil 
as a plate, but fornewhat larger. 
g12 tion 
