1805. ] 
‘To the Editor of the Monthly Magarine. 
SIR, 
ANY ‘writers, zealous for the pu- 
rity of the Englith language, have 
beftowed their cenfures on the intermix- 
ture of French words, with which fome 
fafhionable ftyles have been interlarded. 
But I think due animadverfion has not 
been extended to the equal impropriety of 
mixing words from the learned languages, 
which preferve not only their original ra- 
dical form, but even their grammatical 
inflexions. Such an anomaly of language 
appears to me the grofleft deformity of 
which itis capable, and the moft glaring 
inftance of pedantry and want of tafte in 
the writer. That it has been patronifed 
by perfons of literary refpectability, mult 
have been owing to the oftentation. of 
learning, and a wifh to eftadlifh a marked 
diftin&tion between writers of claffical edu- 
cation, and thofe who have not enjoyed 
that advantage. And trueit is, that the 
datter clafs are often cruelly perplexed in 
the management of words of this fort ; 
and that female authors in particular, who 
often difplay more elegance in the ufe of 
the pen, than the fex which poffeffes an af- 
fumed fuperiority, are apt to trip againt 
Greek and Latin nouns which-have been 
obtruded upon Englifh readers. The 
words towhich I allude are fuch as phe- 
momenon, criterion, effluvium, genus, mi- 
afma, fiamen,@&c. TVhefe, even in the fin- 
gular form, ill affimilate with the general 
tone of our language ; and it is a defect 
that we do not, like the Italians, French, 
and other fouthern people, inftantly natu- 
walize them by a vernacular termination. - 
In length of time, when fuch words come 
into common ule, this is often done by us; 
but through fear of an aukward novelty, 
writers are generally backward in taking 
this liberty ; and they who treat upon 
technical or profeffional fubjeéts, continue 
to employ foreign terms without the 
leat attempt to foften them down into 
Englifh. Thus the language of medical 
writers is commonly a mere jargon, of- 
fenfive to good tafte and propriety ; and a 
reader, not of the profeffion, mutt cer- 
tainly {mile at that ftrange mixture of 
plain Englifh, Latin, and Greek, which 
compotes the lift of difeafes given in your 
Monthly Report. Ido not profefs my- 
felt to be a bold innovator; but if I can 
find one or two creditable writers to 
lead the way in phenomene or phenomeny, 
Z will certainly follow their example. 
But the plural form. of thefe nouns 
‘sis much more exceptionable ; ,for whe can 
call i¢ Englith to pluralize oz, um, us, en, 
&¢. by a, ra, ta, fa? 1 grant that our 
* 
Oofervations on the Englifh Language. 3 
proper plural s, founds ill enough in con- 
junction with fome of the above terim2na- 
tions ; but to my perception, a cacophony 
is not fo bad as an incongruity, Some 
botanical writérs have laudably ufed, ffa- 
mens inftead of flamina; indeed the Lich- 
field Tranflation of Linnzus abounds in 
bold attempts to anglicife Latin terms. 
In fome medical works miafins has pro- 
perly taken place of muia/mata. Boyle 
and other philofophers of his time ufed 
effiuviums, though modern pedantry 
makes effuvia. Genii is, I think, only 
to be met with in ludicrous writing ; and 
geniufes, (though aukward enough in pro- 
nunciation) is the received plural of ge- 
nius. Upon the whole, as the practice 
now ftands, we cannot well avoid the ufe 
of many ancient words unaltered, as En- 
glifh nouns; but I would Jay it down as 
arule, never to pluralize them by inflec- 
tion, but fimply by the addition of the 
$ OF Gs. 
A word with refpect to orthography ! 
Polite Englith pronunciation has no diph- 
thongs; indeed the Latin diphthongs ¢ 
and @ never had any reference to our 
vowel founds. I think, therefore, that 
diphthongs fhould be utterly banifhed from 
the fpelling of all words properly Englifh, 
whatever be their derivation. Dr. Mid- 
dleton, who inclined to etymological or- 
thography, attempted to intreduce the « 
in all words compounded of pra, or 
wherever it exilted in the Latin original ; 
thus he writes prelate, preface, prefix, 
and the like. ‘This was a too glaring 
deformity to be imitated, and we now 
referve only enough of the diphthongal 
fpelling to add to the un-uniformity of our 
very anomalous language, and to give 
{cope to {cholaftic impertinence. Of what 
ule i$ it to write @conomy, hemorrhage, 
&c. when the found is a fimple e, and 
often a fhort one, whereas diphthongs are 
always long? Why do we not at once 
imitate the French, and make onr lan- 
guagetarule to itfelf? There is a fervi- 
lity in thus continuing to wear the fhackles 
of foreign dominion, which our national 
character ought to difdain. 
It has been a favorite maxim with men 
clafiicallyseducated, that no one can write | 
Englith correftly who is not acquainted 
with the learned languages, wheuce it ts 
yartly derived. If this be true, itis a 
proof that our tongue is as yet in an un- 
formed ftate, and indeed rather a jargon 
than a language. But I conceive that the 
truth of the maxim chiefly depends upon 
fuch anomalies as I have pointed out, and 
which ought to be, and eafily might be, 
corrected. If the norma loquendi is the 
A 2 true 
